









































^ j r ivs. ^\^ 



( K^ o *' 



;Aiik 






^•Tc-t,JJ 



^i^?t§^fS^M/Kl'^ 











"^^Ao^ 



o y 






















AN ESSAY 



ON 



APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION; 

BEING 

A DEFENCE OF A GENUINE PROTESTANT MINISTRY, 

AGAINST THE EXCLUSIVE AND INTOLERANT SCHEMES 
OF PAPISTS AND HIGH CHURCHMEN ; 

AND SUPPLYING 

A GENERAL ANTIDOTE TO POPERY: 



A CRITIQUE 

ON 

THE APOLOGY FOR APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 

BY THE HON. AND REV. A. P. PERCEVAL, B. C. L., 

Chaplain in ordinary to the Queen : 

AND A REVIEW OF DR. W. F. HOOK'S SERMON 

ON *' HEAR THE CHURCH,*' 

PREACHED BEEOJ^J^^QUEEN, JUNE 17, 1838: 

. BY TH^AS POWELL, 

\%^? I ^^^i.MSL^^MINjSTm 



W: U^4«^^ 



'U4 



NEW-YORK: 
PUBLISHED BY G. LANE & P. P. SANDFORD, 

FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE OFFICE, 
200 MULBERRY-STREET. 

J. CoUord, Printer. 
1842. 






" THEY ARE EQUALLY MAD WHO ^MAINTAIN THAT BISHOPS ARE 
SO JURE DIVINO THAT THEY MUST BE CONTINUED : AND THEY 
WHO SAY THEY ARE SO UNCHRISTIAN, THAT THEY MUST BE PUT 

AWAY."— Selden. 

"MEN CANNOT CARRY ON A &ESOLUTE STRUGGLE AGAINST 
SOPHISTRY WITH THE SAME SMOOTHNESS AND SIMPLICITY WITH 
WHICH THEY ENUNCIATE TRUISMS."— Quarterly Review, Jan., 1840. 









CONTENTS 



Page 

Preface to the first edition : 5 

Preface to the second edition 7 

Introduction 9 

SECTION I. 

Statements of this doctrine of apostolical succession by its 

advocates 13 

SECTION II. 
The state of the general question 21 

SECTION III. 

No positive proof from the Scriptures of these high Church claims 
— The commission of Jesus Christ to the apostles — The 
claim of apostleship for bishops — High priesthood of bishops 
— The case of Timothy and Titus — The angels of the seven 
churches 25 

SECTION IV. 

The general spirit and scope of the gospel opposed to this high 

Church scheme 64 

SECTION V. 

Scriptural evidence agal?ist these claims, continued— Bishops and 

presbyters the same, proved from the New Testament 80' 

SECTION VI. 

The same argument continued — Presbyters and bishops the same, 

proved from the purest Christian antiquity '. - 89 

Appendix to section vi ". 141 

SECTION VII. 

The Church of England at the Reformation against these claims 144 

SECTION VIII. 

Bishops and presbyters the same order, shown by the testimony 

of all the Christian churches in the world 169 



4 CONTENTS. 

SECTION IX. 

Page 
Presbyters and bishops shown to be the same order, by the 

testimony of the greatest divines of all ages - 201 

SECTION X. 

No sufficient historic evidence of a personal succession of valid 

episcopal ordinations 312 

SECTION XL 

Nullity of the Popish ordinations — Character of the Popish Church, 

and Popish bishops, before and at the Reformation 224 

SECTION XII. 
Popish ordinations of English bishops before the Reformation . . . 237 

SECTION XIII. 
Nullity of Popish ordinations of English bishops, concluded 250 

SECTION XIV. 

Genuine apostolical succession ^ 271 

Conclusion of the Essay 295 

An Appendix : containing, — first, A Critique on the Apology for 
the Doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, by the Hon. and 
Rev. A. P. Perceval, B. C. L 311 

Secondly, A Review of Dr.W. F. Hook's Sermon, Vicar of Leed*s, 

on " Hear the Church" 340 



PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 



The writer of this Essay is alone accountable for all 
its faults and defects. He has written it without the 
counsel or the help of any man, or of any body of men. 
He believes, and therefore he has spoken. Perhaps it 
will make him some enemies : this he w^ould regret, as 
he desires, as much as lieth in him, to live peaceabh 
with all men. If maintaining the truth should make 
him enemies, he cannot help it. Some may think that 
he speaks too freely on certain points, and as to certain 
orders of persons. All he can say is, that he thought 
truth and piety required it. He would give honour to 
whom honour is due ; but he hopes he shall ever show 
the greatest courtesy to the truth of God. While men, 
or the ordinances of men, oppose not the truth of God, 
he would respect them, and would submit to them for 
the Lord's sake ; but when they oppose that truth, 
either in principle or in practice, he would call no man 
father upon earth. The author makes no pretensions 
to style : he only regards w^ords as a plain man does 
his clothes ; not for ornament, but for use and decency. 
The confidence of his language arises from the convic- 
tion of his own mind, and not from any design to im- 
pose his opinions upon others. He disUkes to read an 



6 PREFACE. 

author who does not appear to beUeve himself. If any 
choose to controvert his positions, he freely allows them 
the liberty which he has taken. His design is catho- 
lic, NOT SECTARIAN. Truth is his object : though his 
efforts should perish, yet he will rejoice in the triumph 
of truth. He commits his work to God, and to his 
church, praying that the kingdom of our Redeemer 
may speedily come ; that peace and happiness, truth 
and justice, religion and piety, may be established 
among us, and in all the earth, throughout all genera- 
tions ! Amen ! 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



The author, on issuing a second edition of this Es- 
say, embraces the opportunity of gratefully acknow- 
ledging his obligations to the public for their favourable 
reception of his work. 

Thd difference between this second edition and the 
former one, consists in the addition of some important 
arguments ; in the am'plification of others ; and in the 
increase of highly important authorities from, writers 
of great celebrity, but whose works are expensive, and 
rarely to be met with by general readers. One of the 
most important additions will be found in the second 
sub-section of section 3, on the apostlesliip of bish- 
ops. On a mature re-examination of the works of high 
church Episcopalians, the author perceived that this 
was a position which they esteemed of the very great- 
est importance, and in which they placed the greatest 
confidence. He set himself, therefore, to furnish a 
complete refutation of it. The reader is requested to 
give that sub-section a very attentive perusal. 

It will be found that several of the additional notes 
contain an exposure of the fallacies in the " Vindication 
of the Episcopal or ApostoHcal Succession, by the 
Rev. J. Sinclair, M. A., of Pembroke Colles^e, Oxford, 



8 PREFACE. 

Fellow of the Royal Society, Edinburgh, Minister of 
St. Paul's Episcopal chapel, Edinburgh, &c." 

Dr. Hook having requested the Hon. and Rev. A» 
P. Perceval, chaplain in ordinary to the queen, to take 
up the defence of the high church succession scheme, 
the honourable and reverend gentleman has done so ; 
and his work having been announced by the doctor's party 
as a complete answer to the Essay, the author has added 
a Critique on that work. He thinks the examination 
of these two specimens of defence by Mr. Sinclair and 
the doctor's chosen champion, Mr. Perceval, will 
suffice, and will show the reader how futile all such 
defences are, when tried on the principles maintained 
in this Essay. 

The Review of Dr. Hook's sermon, on " Hear the 
Church," having a very near affinity to the argument 
of the Essay, and that Review having been considered 
a complete antidote to the doctor's main fallacy, it is 
retained in the present edition. 

A general index is added to the whole. 



INTRODUCTION. 



*' Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath 
made you free," is a divine command. The truth of God, 
at the Reformation, made the Protestant churches free 
from priestly tyranny, and the traditions of men. It is 
the duty of every Protestant to watch against all encroach- 
ments upon this liberty. 

Popery commenced on the principle of eocclusiveness 
and bigotry. " Out of the church is no salvation ; — the 
Church of Rome is the only true church ; — ergo, out of 
the Church of Rome is no salvation." This is the logic 
of Rome ; enforced, according to opportunity of power 
and circumstances, by excommunication and confiscation ; 
by fire and fagot to the body, and perdition to the soul, 
against all who have dared to resist its claims. 

All exclusiveness and bigotry generate intolerance. 
When s.ny part of God's church asserts its right to the 
whole inheritance of his people, it publishes an act of 
ejectment against the rest ; and the spirit that dictated the 
ejectment will, when circumstances seem favourable, en- 
deavour to effect its object by persecuting those who do 
not admit this exclusive claim. To admit an unjust claim, 
is to encourage injustice. Our Christian birthright is a 
trust from heaven ; and we cannot " sell it for a mess of 
pottage," without an Esau's profaneness. 

A certain class of men have, at different times since 
the Reformation, come forward to effect that in the Pro- 
testant church which Popery endeavours to effect as to 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

the church universal. This they try to accomplish by a 
sophistical method of teaching the doctrine of apostolical 
succession. By this doctrine they excommunicate all the 
other Protestant churches in Europe. This is done se- 
riously and in earnest, and that, too, by men of consider- 
able influence and learning. The writer is convinced that 
the broad absurdity of their arrogant pretensions v^ill be 
sufficient to lead many to treat those claims with just 
contempt. However, there are some that seem willing to 
receive the bold assertions and pretensions of such men, 
as proofs sufficient to support their claims. Others, who 
do not believe them, would yet be glad to see plain rea- 
sons for rejecting them. It is for this class of persons, 
chiefly, that the following Essay is designed. 

Another object with the writer is to develop the nature 
of genuine Protestantism^ and to supply an antidote to 
Popery. Popery is a deep-laid scheme. Its principal 
BASIS is priestly arrogance^ generating the direst tyranny. 
This is not founded on the word of God, but in the 
traditions of men. This foundation must be exposed and 
broken up, or in vain shall we attempt to break the iron 
yoke of Popery. Now it is a matter worthy of the most 
serious and careful observation by the reader, that nearly 
all the great succession divines are semi-papists. Arch- 
bishop Laud is supposed to be the father of them. Among 
his distinguished disciples w^ill be found Dr. Hickes, 
Bishop Taylor, the authors of " The Oxford Tracts for the 
Times," Dr. Hook, vicar of Leeds, &c. 

The reader may be surprised to find the celebrated 
Bishop Taylor represented as a semi-papist ; let him read 
his ** Clems Domini^'' and his " Episcopacy Asserted," and 
he will see the evidence of the statement. Bishop Tay- 
lor's splendid talents have imposed upon many, and have 
gained him more credit than he deserved. Like many 
pious Papists, he could write well upon devotional sub- 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

jects ; but he is no safe guide as a theologian. Dr. Hook, 
and the authors of " The Oxford Tracts for the Times," 
are evidently introducing Popery into the Church of Eng- 
land, and spreading it in the nation. 

Many of the clergy of the Established Church are 
strongly opposed to the errors of these men, and they 
have spoken out manfully in the pages of the " Christian 
Observer." They seem, however, to be very tender of 
this doctrine oi apostolical succession. They perhaps think 
it is calculated to add importance to their ministry in 
opposition to the Methodists and Dissenters. A spirit of 
exclusiveness is, indeed, very general among the clergy 
of the Established Church. 

An opinion, too, of the divine right of episcopacy has 
spread extensively in the Church of England : most of 
its clergy seem willing to believe it. Hence, generally 
speaking, they are not the men from whom a refutation of 
this doctrine of apostolical succession is to be expected : 
yet it evidently increases Popery in the Church and in the 
nation. Its exposure and refutation, therefore, may be a 
general benefit to Protestantism. 

It will not be amiss here to obviate a difficulty that may 
arise in some minds. Perhaps some persons, especially 
the members of the Establishuient, may think that the 
writer is attacking the Church. If by " the Church^'' they 
will understand the principles of the Reformers, Archbishop 
Cranmer, Bishop Jewel, &c., on the questions here dis- 
cussed; then he most unhesitatingly declares, that, with 
some trifling exceptions, he heartily embraces them, and 
means to defend them ; but if by " the ChurcN'' they mean 
the principles of such men as Archbishop Laud, and his 
disciples the Oxford Tract-men, Dr. Hook, &c., then he 
does controvert them ; because he believes them to be un- 
scriptural, antiprotestant, exclusive, intolerant, and Popish. 
The author, indeed, writes not to attack, but to defend. 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

These men make the attack. The consequence of their 
principles is to charge all other ministers as thieves and 
robbers ; they try to trouble and frighten their flocks ; they 
expect their gain by gathering those they never sought out 
of the wilderness : what sort of shepherds, then, should 
we be to look with indifference upon such proceedings 1 

In prosecuting the subject, we shall first produce the 
statements of this doctrine of apostolical succession from 
the advocates of the system. We shall then endeavour to 
give the true state of the question, and refute the arguments 
advanced in favour of that system. In the next place, the 
arguments against these claims will be brought forward, 
showing the whole to be contrary to the principles of the 
Reformation, and leading to persecution and Popery. 
Lastly, the nature of the only genuine and absolutely essen- 
tial apostolical succession will be briefly unfolded. The 
whole will be concluded with some practical inferences, 
and counsels of peace to the Protestant churches at large. 



APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 



SECTION L 

STATEMENTS OF THIS DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCES- 
SION BY ITS ABLEST ADVOCATES. 

The design of the following pages is, first, — the refuta- 
tion of certain errors fraught with pernicious consequences 
to the peace of the whole Christian church ; and then the 
establishment of Scriptural truth in their place. To give 
the authors, accused of maintaining these errors, as fair a 
trial as the limits of this Essay will admit, we shall, in the 
commencement, introduce copious extracts from the works 
of the most distinguished among them. This will enable 
the reader to judge of the pertinence of the arguments 
against them. The importance of the subject, and the 
celebrity of the writers, will, it is hoped, prevent the ex- 
tracts from appearing tedious. 

We shall arrange them under three heads : — 

1. As to their doctrine of apostolical succession; 

2. As to the necessity of ordination by succession 
bishops ; 

3. As to the nullity or worthlessness of all other ordi- 
nations, and the ministrations belonging to them. 

First, then, as to their doctrine of apostolical succession. 
Bishop Taylor's " Episcopacy Asserted" was published 
by royal command. He had splendid talents : and doubt- 
less he exerted them to the utmost to please his royal 
master, and to support a cause which he enthusiastically 
admired. We select him as a leading advocate, to give the 
cause the fairest chance of success. He closes his argu- 
ment for the divine right of this doctrine of apostolical suc- 
cession, as follows : — '' The Summe of all is this, that 
Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters, or 72 Disci- 
ples. To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for 



14 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the whole commission was given to them in as great and 
comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by vertue of 
it, they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in con- 
firmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy 
orders, a power of jurisdiction and authority to governe the 
Church ; and this power was not temporary, but successive 
and perpetuall, and was intended as an ordinary office in 
the Church, so that the successors of the Apostles had the 
same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had, 
and though the personall mission was not immediate, as 
of the Apostles it was, yet the commission and institution 
of the function was all one. But to the 72 Christ gave 7io 
commission but to preaching, which was a very limited 
commission. There was all the immediate Divine institu- 
tion of Presbyterate as a distinct order, that can be fairly 
pretended. But yet farther, these 72 the Apostles did ad- 
mit in partem solicitudinis, and by new ordination or dele- 
gation Apostolicall, did give them power of administering 
Sacraments, of absolving sinners, of governing the church 
in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles, of which 
they had a capacity by Christ's calling them at first m sor- 
tern Ministerii, but the exercise, and the actuating of this 
capacity they had from the Apostles. So that not by 
Divine ordination, or immediate commission from Christ, 
but by derivation from the Apostles (and therefore in 
minority and subordination to them) the Presbyters did 
exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of 
the Apostles or Bishops, or in conjunction consiliary, and 
by way of advice, or before the consecration of a Bishop 
to a particular Church. And all this I doubt not, but was 
done by the direction of the Holy Ghost, as were all other 
Acts of Apostolicall ministration, and particularly the in- 
stitution of the other order, viz. of Deacons. This is all 
that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the com- 
mission given in the institution of Presbyters, and this I 
shall afterwards confirme by the practice of the Catholick 
Church, and so vindicate the practices of the present 
Church from the common prejudices that disturbe us, for 
by this account. Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution, 
but the ONLY order that derives immediately from Christ."* 
Dr. Hickes, another distinguished scholar and divine of 

* Episcopacy Asserted, pp. 46-48, ed. Ox. 1642, 4to. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 15 

the Church of England, denominated bishop and confessor 
by the Oxford Tract-men, thus speaks : — " Bishops are 
appointed to succeed the apostles, and like them to stand 
in Christ's place, and exercise his kingly, priestly, and 
prophetical office over their flocks ; can you, when you 
consider this, think it novel, or improper, or uncouth, to 
call them spiritual princes, and their diocesses, princi- 
palities, v^^hen they have every thing in their office that 
can denominate a prince ? For what is a prince, but a 
chief ruler of a society, that hath authority over the rest, 
to make laws for it, to challenge the obedience of all the 
members, and all ranks of men in it, d^ndi power to coerce 
them, if they will not obey ? . . . . They stand in God's 
and Christ's stead over their flocks, the clergy as well as 
the people are to be subject to them, as to the vicegerents 

of our Lord And the successors of the apostles, the 

bishops, like spiritual princes, exercise the same coercive 
autJiority that they did in inflicting spiritual censures upon 
their disobedient subjects. It would require a volume to 
show yon the various punishments with which they cor- 
rected their disobedience. They degraded clergymen from 
their order, and as for the people, they put down those 
who were in the uppermost class of communion into the 
station of penitents, and other inferior places ; others they 
forbid to come further than the church doors, and those 
whom they did not so degrade, they often suspended from 
the sacrament. The contumacious both of the clergy and 
laity they punished with excommunication ; from which, 
after very long and very severe penances, they absolved 
some ; and others, who were enormous, and very frequent 
lapsers, they would not reconcile to the peace of the 
Church, but in the danger, and prospect of death. I need 
not tell you how much the ancient Christians stood in awe 
of the APOSTOLICAL ROD in the hands of their bishops, es- 
peg^ally of excommunication, which they looked upon as 
the spiritual axe and sword to the soul, and thought more 
terrible than death."^ 

And Dr. Hook, the present vicar of Leeds, thus states 
his views on the subject: — " Some persons seem to think 
that the government of the Church was essentially different 
in the days of the apostles from what it is now, because 

* On the Dignity of the Epis. Order, pp. 191. &c. Lond. 1707, 8vo. 



16 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

they do not find the names and titles of the ecclesiastical 
officers precisely the same. For instance, as I have just 
said, he whom we now call a -presbyter^ or priest, was fre- 
quently styled in the New Testament^ a bishop. ^But it is 
not for names that we contend. We ask what was the 
fact, and the fact was this : that the officer whom we now 
call a bishop, was dX first called an apostle, although after- 
ward it was thought better to confine the title of apostle 
to those who had seen the Lord Jesus, while their success- 
ors, exercising the same rights and authority, though unen- 
dowed with miraculous powers, contented themselves with 
the designation of bishops. After this the title was never 
given to the second order of the ministry The pre- 
lates, who at this present time rule the churches of these 
realms, were validly ordained by others, who, by means of 
an unbroken spiritual descent of ordination, derived their 
mission from the apostles and from our Lord. This con- 
tinual descent is evident to every one who chooses to in- 
vestigate it. Let him read the catalogues of our bishops 
ascending up to the most remote period. Our ordinations 
descend in a direct unbroken line from Peter and Paul, the 
apostles of the circumcision and the Gentiles. These 
great apostles successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and 
Clement, bishops of Rome ; and the apostolic succession 
was regularly continued from them to C destine, Gregory, 
and Vitalianus, who ordained Patrick bishop for the Irish, 
and Augustine and Theodore for the English. And from 
those times an uninterrupted series of valid ordinations has 
carried down the apostolical succession in our churches to 
the present day. There is not a bishop, priest, or deacon, 
among us, who cannot, if he please, trace his own spirit- 
ual descent from St. Peter or St. Paul."* 

In the next place, let us hear what is said about ordi- 
nation by succession bishops, even when wicked and 
heretical. ^ 

Archdeacon Mason's " Defence of the Church of Eno-- 
land Ministry" was begun and completed by the patronage, 
and under the counsel of Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, 
and was dedicated to King James I. Its authority is high 
among the Church of England divines. He writes in the 
form of a dialogue, between a Romish priest, Philodoxus, 

* Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 17 

and a Church of England divine, called Orthodoxns. 
The title of chapter eleventh, book 2, is this, " Does 
schism or heresy take av^ay the power of consecration ?" 
He goes on to bring Philodoxiis to confess that neither 
heresy, (p. 175,) nor degradation from the office of a bishop, 
(p. 176,) nor schism, (p. 180,) nor the most extreme 
WICKEDNESS, [quamvis enim viri essent omnium sceleratissi- 
mi, p. 178,) nor "any thing else, can deprive a person 
once made a bishop of the poiver of giving true orders." 

" Orthodoxus. Quod candide largiris, cupid^ arripimusP 
The Church of England divine says, " what you^'' the 
Papists, " candidly grant, we joyfully embrace ! !"* 
Every pious reader must be grieved to the heart to see the 
defenders of an important section of the Protestant church 
joyfully embrace the impious position, that a bishop is a 
true bishop, though a heretic, and the most wicked of men ! 
— and all for what ? why, merely to keep up the figment 
of episcopal ordination and succession. Indeed this is 
inevitable on the exclusive scheme of episcopacy, jure di- 
vino. If this perishes, they suppose their Christianity 
perishes. It must perish, on their scheme, or come through 
the hands of the moral monsters of Rome. Hence these 
impious positions are joyfully embraced to defend it. 

Lastly, these authors say, that no ordinations but such 
as are performed by succession bishops are valid and 
divine. This, also, with them is a necessary consequence. 
Thus Bishop Taylor : " Without (the offices of episco- 
pacy,) no priest, no ordination, no consecration of the sacra- 
ment, no absolution, no rite, or sacrament, legitimately can 
be performed in order to eternity."! 

The learned Dodwell declares — " None but the bishop 
can unite us to the Father and the Son. Whence it will 
further follow that whoever are disunited from the visible 
communion of the Church on earth, and particularly yro^n 
that visible communion of the bishop, must consequently be 
disunited from the whole visible catholic Church on earth ; 
and not only so, but from the invisible communion of the 
holy angels and saints in heaven, and, which is yet more, 
from Christ and God himself ... It is one of the most 
dreadful aggravations of the condition of the damned that 

* Vindicse Eccles. Anglicanae, edit. sec. fol. Lond., 1638. 
t Episcopacy Asserted, p. 197, 



18 ON Jfe«rOLICAL SUCCESSION. 




lJi(^#re baaishedHl^^P the presence of the Lord, and from 
the glory of his po^e*^t The same is their condition also 
who are disunited from Christ by being disunited from his 
visible representative,^^ (the bishop.)^ 

Dr. Hook, on this point, says, " Yon will observe how 
important all this is which I have now laid before you. 
Unless Christ be spiritually present with the ministers of 
religion in their services, those services will be vain. But 
the ONLY ministrations to which he has promised his 
presence is to those of the bishops who are successors 
of the first commissioned apostles, and the other clergy 
acting under their sanction, and by their authority." 

" I know the outcry which is raised against this — the 
doctrine ^ of the Christian Church for eighteen hundred 
years — I know the outcry that is raised against it by those 
sects which can trace their origin no higher than to some 
celebrated preacher at the Reformation. But I disregard 
it, because I shall, by God's help, continue to do, what I 
have done ever since I came among you — namely, declare 
the whole counsel of God, without regard to consequences 
or respect of persons, and at the same time, as far as in 
me lies, live peaceably with all men."t 

A passage or two from the Oxford " Tracts for the 
Times" may suffice, though all their volumes are impreg- 
nated with the same principles. 

" The AoM," say they, " which the propagandists of the 
* Holy Discipline' obtained on the fancies and affections of 
the people, of whatever rank, age, and sex, depended very 
much on their incessant appeals to iSi^Sx fancied apostolical 
succession. They found persons willing and eager to suffer 
or rebel, as the case might be, for their system; because 
they had possessed them with the notion, that it was the 
system handed down from the apostles, ' a divine epis- 
copate ;' so Beza called it. Why should we despair of 
obtaining, in time, an influence, far more legitimate and 
less dangerously exciting, but equally searching and ex- 
tensive, by the diligent inculcation of our true and Scrip- 
tural claim ?"J 

* One Altar and One Priesthood, 1683, pp. 387 and 397. 
t Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment ; an4 see 
Hickes on the Christian Priesthood, Pref. 194. 
t No. 4, p. 7. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 19 

" I fear we have neglected the real ground'" "on which 
our authority is built, — our apostolical descent."* 

" A person not commissioned from the hishop, may use 
the words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe with the water, 
on earth, but there is no promise from Christ, that such a 
man shall admit souls to the kingdom of heaven. A person 
not commissioned may break bread, and pour out wine, and 
pretend to give the Lord's supper, but it can afford no 
comfort to any to receive it at his hands, because there is 
no warrant from Christ to lead communicants to suppose 
that while he does so here on earth, they will be partakers 
in the Saviour's heavenly body and blood. And as for the 
person himself, who takes upon himself without warrant to 
minister in holy t] irso-s, he is all the while treading in the 
footsteps of Korali, Dathan, and Abiram, whose awful 
PUNISHMENT you read of in the book of Numbers. (Com- 
pare Numbers xvi with Jude 2.")t 

Here the reader sees the main features of this system ; 
— a system supported by a large number of learned and 
influential divines in the Church of England since the time 
of Archbishop Laud. It has lately been revived by the 
authors of the Oxford " Tracts for the Times," Dr. Hook, 
vicar of Leeds, &;c. This doctrine is the root of all their 
errors and Popish proceedings. By such a scheme as this 

they FORGE A CHAIN TO BIND HEAVEN AND EARTH, GoD 
AND MAN, TO THE ACTS OF PRIESTLY ARROGANCE. Allow 

the above doctrine, and though Satan and Ms host incarnate 
should become ordained by succession bishops, yet no 
ordinances but such as they administer have the promise 
of Christ, but are all vain ! This scheme of Anglican- 
Popery will be seen to have a little variation in its ma- 
chinery from Roman-Popery ; but they are both animated 
by the same genius, and both terminate in the same con- 
sequences. 

The reader will not regret to see, in the commencement 
of this Essay, the opinions of two celebrated foreign Pro- 
testant divines on this subject : the one, of the Lutheran 
church, and the other, of the reformed French church. 
Chemnitius, a greatly admired Lutheran divine, in his ad- 
mirable Examination or Confutation of the Council of 
Trent, says, " By this measure, they (the Papists) endea- 

* No. 1, p. 2. t No. 35, pp. 2, 3. 



20 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

vour not so much to reproach our (the Protestant) churches, 
as, at one stroke, to give a mortal stab, and to destroy them 
from the foundation. In their clamours by which they 
labour to establish this point, they contend, that in our 
churches is no true and legitimate administering of the 
sacraments; that God by our labours will give no blessing, 
no pardon, no remission of sins; that we can have no true 
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; that all our 
ministers are thieves and robbers, not having entered by 
the true door" (of apostolical succession) " into the sheep- 
fold. An atrocious denunciation indeed ! And they give 
no reason for it but this, that the ministers of our (Pro- 
testant) churches are not called, sent forth, ordained, 
shaven, and anointed by Popish bishops."* 

Now it is clear that there is a perfect identity in the 
matter urged against the reformers by the Papists, and that 
urged by high Church of England clergymen against all 
Protestants who have not episcopal ordination. If the 
latter have not ventured to be so bold in their denuncia- 
tions, we can easily see the reason. They know the full 
consequences, boldly declared, would, with many Protest- 
ants, even in the Church of England, work as an argu- 
7nentiim ad absurduin : the absurdity would produce re- 
action. They, therefore, generally throw it out to work 
upon weak, credulous, unsuspecting, or bigoted minds. 

Claude, in his able Defence of the Reformation, says, 
" And to speak my own thoughts freely, it seems to me, 
that that firm opinion of the absolute necessity/ of episcopacy, 
that goes so high as to own no church, or call, or ministry, 
or sacraments, or salvation in the world, where there are 
no episcopal ordinations, although there should be the true 
faith, the true doctrine, and piety there ; and which would 
that ALL RELIGION should depend on a formality, and 
even on a formality that we have shown to be of no 
other than humane institution ; that opinion, I say, cannot 
be lookt on otherwise then . as the very worst character 
and mark of the highest hypocricy, a piece of Pharisaism 
throughout, that strains at a gnat when it swallows a camel, 
and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those 
kind of thoughts, and a compassion for those who fill their 
heads with them."t 
* Pt. ii, p. 421, foL Genev., 1634. f Pt. iv, p. 97, 4to. Lond., 1683. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 21 

SECTION 11. 

THE STATE OF THE GENERAL QUESTION. 

Having exhibited a general view of the doctrine of suc- 
cession as taught by these high Churchmen, it may now 
be proper to clear our way by giving the true state of the 
question. 

The succession divines maintain, — 

1. That bishops are, by divine right, an order 
superior to, distinct from, and having powers, authority, 
and rights incompatible with presbyters, simply as pres- 
byters : 

2. That the bishops of this order are the sole success- 
ors of the apostles as ordainers of other ministers, and 
GOVERNORS both of pastors and people : 

3. That this succession is a personal succession, viz. 
— that it is to be traced through an historical series of 
persons, validly ordained as bishops, transmitting, in an 
unbroken line, this episcopal order and power to the latest 
generations : 

4. That no ministry is valid, except it have this epis- 
copal ordination ; and that all ordinances and sacraments 
are vain, except they be administered by such episcopally 
ordained ministers. 

Now we deny every one of these positions. And we 
shall show, — 

1. That bishops and presbyters are, by divine right, the 
SAME ORDER ; and that presbyters, by divine right, have 
the same power and authority as bishops ; that ordina- 
tion by presbyters is equally valid with that of bishops ; 
and, consequently, that the ministry of all the reformed 
Protestant churches is equally valid with that of any epis- 
copal church : 

2. That presbyters are as much the successors of the 
apostles as bishops are : 

3. That a succession of the truth of doctrine, o^ faith 
and holiness, of the pure word of God, and of the sacraments 
duly administered, is the only essential succession ne- 
cessary to a Christian church : 



22 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

4. That all are true Christian churches where such 
a ministry and such ordinances are found. 

Here it should be well observed, that the distinguishing 
character of the scheme we oppose, is its unchristian ex- 
clusiveness and intolerance. If its advocates had contended 
only for the lawfulness or allowahleness of an ecclesiastical 
arrangement for a class of ministers whom they choose 
to call bishops, without excluding the presbyters of other 
churches from their Scriptural power and authority to per- 
form all the duties necessary for the being and well being 
of the Christian church, this might have passed : but this 
does not satisfy them. Nothing will answer their design, 
but the degrading of the presbyters of those churches, and 
all presbyters, to an incapacity for performing those duties 
which God has committed unto them, and the setting up 
of an order of bishops, by divirie rights with the sole and 
exclusive powers of ordaining ministers, and of governing 
them and the church to the end of the world. Again, if 
these writers had contended simply for the importance of a 
succession of pious ministers, in a settled state of things, in 
any church, as a great blessing to that church, and an en- 
couragement to the faith of its members, without making 
an unbroken line of succession absolutely essential in 
all states to the very being of a church, they would have 
acted commendably ; and not a word of disapprobation of 
such a succession is found in this Essay. But this would 
have allowed, with the early Christian fathers, that the 
succession of apostolical faith and doctrine is the only 
ESSENTIAL succcssioii : this, however, is too liberal for our 
high Churchmen ; it would not answer their intolerant 
purposes. Bishop Taylor, the Oxford Tract-men, &c., 
solemnly maintain, that without an unbroken line of such 
bishops as their scheme maintains, and their ordinations 
from the apostles, there is no ministry, no promise of 
Christ, no blessings in any of the ordinances of religion : and 
that, consequently, the Scotch church, the Lutheran church, 
and all the Protestant churches in the world, are consigned, 
like heathens, to the uncovenanted mercies of God ! 

As an epilogue to this drama, these writers, after this 
excommunication, sometimes affect to feel a little charity 
for the excommunicated, and say, " We do not hurt them 
— the Church doors are open — they can come in if they 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 23 

please — they shut themselves out, &c." Just so says Po- 
pery : " We are the church," say they, — '' its doors are 
open." And they will " compass sea and land to make one 
proselyte, and when he is made, they make him twofold 
more the child of hell than themselves."* But if a person 
does not see reason for the dominion of his holiness of 
Rome, for denying the evidence of his senses in their doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, &c., then they consign his soul 
to perdition, and his body to the secular arm to be burned. 
If you say, " This is cruel," it is replied, " O ! no : we pity 
him — we do not hurt him — the church doors are open 
— he may come in if he pleases — yea, we entreat him 
to come in — he shuts himself out — his blood must be upon 
his own head." The reader must determine whether or 
not this charity is from above. 

We repeat, then, that in perusing this or any other work 
on the subject, the reader must never forget that the estab- 
lishment of the fact of so?7ie kind of an order of bishops 
having existed in the church from an early period, and of 
they^c^ of an unbroken line from the same period, would 
not establish the system of these men. It might be 
allowed that both are important to the well being of a 
church ; and yet it would not follow that they are necessary 
to the being of that church. No proof will do for the 
above scheme, but the proof that the Lord Jesus Christ has 
ABSOLUTELY determined that; no ministers but such bishops 
as they feign shall com^ey ithis succession ; and that with- 
out this unbroken line of such bishops, and their ordina- 
tions from the time of the apostles, he will give no blessing 
to the ministry or ordinances of any church under heaven, 
to the end of the world. No proof but this will suffice to 
the establishing of their monstrous scheme. If its advo- 
cates would act candidly and fairly, they should set them- 
selves to produce this proof, or give up their cause. If 
the reader keeps this, the true state of the question, dis- 
tinctly before his mind, their endless assertions and soph- 
isms will be powerless ; if he does not, he will, of course, 
be mystified and misled. 

But though we thus state the subject, that the establish- 
ment of^^the fact of some kind of an order of bishops from 
an e^yly- period in the church, and the fact of an unbroken 

* Matt, xxiii, 15. 



24 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION^. 

line from the same period, would not support their scheme ; 
yet, as to such an order of bishops as they contend for, and 
as to such an unbroken line of succession as they boast of, 
we DENY the FACT OF BOTH. God ncvcr instituted the 
first ; and the last does not exist. All this will be cleary 
shown in the sequel. 

This being the state of the question, the proof of th^ir 
own propositions lies upon the succession divines. Their 
proofs must be Scriptural, clear, and strong. This is evi- 
dent from the interests of both parties. The interests of 
the succession divines and their followers require such 
proofs. They venture to suspend the validity of their own 
ministry and ordinances, and the whole Christianity of all 
their people, upon this doctrine : what wretched apprehen- 
sions, then, must they have, except their proof be Scrip- 
tural, clear, and strong. The interests of other Christian 
churches require this. The result of this doctrine, they 
are aware, is to excommunicate all the other Protestant 
churches in Europe. He that attempts this, should show 
cause why he does it. His own character requires this : 
this also is necessary for the conviction and conversion of 
the offenders, and for the satisfaction of the public mind. 
Bishop Taylor, and some others, have attempted it ; we 
shall examine their attempts. Dr. Hook, indeed, is un- 
warrantably arrogant and insolent upon the subject. He 
says, among other arrogant things, in his " Two Sermons 
on the Church and the Establishment," " It is very seldom 
that the clergyman of the parish feels it to be worth his 
while to enter into controversy with the Dissenting teacher. 
He knows his superiority, and that he has nothing to gain 
by the contest." Now this is not so meek, — first to ex- 
communicate you, and then to insult you for asking the 
reason for this sentence. " He knows his superiority, and 
that he has nothing to gain by the contest." Indeed^ 
what, no justification for this tremendous sentence ? What, 
then, has he something to lose here ? Truth always 
gains : error and evil deeds only lose by the light. Dr. 
Hook may possibly find he has something to lose, if he 
has nothing to gain. It is a common trick with the Pa- 
pists to be the most confident where they have least proof. 
They know many of their deluded followers will exercise 
an implicit faith in their assertions. This will do — rea- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 25 

soiling would possibly lead many to doubt — perhaps to do 
more. It is wise in such a cause to avoid it, and to treat 
your adversary with scorn. Why not ? you have " nothing 
to gain}'' by the controversy. Dr. Hook, however, has 
favoured us with the outline of his scheme and argumenta- 
tion. These we shall notice in their place. 

Now though the 'proof, as we have said, lies upon these 
assertors of this personal succession scheme ; and though 
no man ought to be required to prove a negative; yet as 
they are shy of their proofs, and in their stead give the 
world their important ipse dixits ; and as their bold asser- 
tions may trouble many, an exposure of the baselessness 
and futility of these assertions may be useful. Let the 
reader remember, that if we can only show that a reasona- 
ble " douhf^ lies upon any part of this scheme, that doubt 
will be fatal to it. If we show more ; if we show every 
PROPOSITION to be DOUBTFUL ; — yea, more still, every 
proposition to be baseless and false ; then the whole 
fabric falls to the ground. 



SECTION III. 

NO POSITIVE PROOF FROM THE SCRIPTURES OF THESE HIGH 
CHURCH CLAIMS. 

We will proceed to examine the Scriptural proofs ad- 
duced in favour of these high Church claims. Bishop 
Taylor has granted, (what every Protestant ought to insist 
upon,) that, except they have clear. Scriptural grounds 
for these claims, the attempt to impose them on the church 
of God would be tyranny. " Whatsoever," says he, " was 
the regiment of the Church in the apostles'' times, that must 
be perpetuall, (not so as to have all that which was per- 
sonall, and 'temporary, but so as to have no other,) for that, 
and that only is of divine institution which Christ com- 
mitted to the apostles, and if the Church be not now gov- 
erned as then, we can show no divine authority for our 
government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it, 
too, or be call'd usurpers."* So says Chillingworth, in 
his immortal declaration, — " The religion of the Protest- 

* Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41. 
2 



26 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ants — is the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only is 
the religion of Protestants ! Whatsoever else they believe 
besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable conse- 
quences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion ; 
but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with 
coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor 
require the belief of it of others, without most high and 
most scliismatical presumption T^ 

I ought to caution the reader on one point here — it is 
this, that he will not blame me if I do not bring forAvard 
any such arguments produced by these divines, out of the 
sacred Scriptures, as their cause might seem to demand. 
All I can say is, that I know of no arguments of this kind ; 
and therefore I cannot produce them. I promise him I 
wdll produce the best I have anywhere found urged by 
these advocates for their scheme. Perhaps, however, in 
justice to some eminent writers in favour of episcopacy, I 
should say, that they substantially give up direct Scripture 
proof, and rely cJiiejiy upon an induction from the testimo- 
ny of the early Christian y^^/^er^". Thus, Dr. Hammond 
asks, " Who were the apostles' successors in that power 
which concerned the governing their churches which they 
planted ? and first, I answer, that it being a matter of fact, 
or story, later than the Scripture can universally reach to, 
it cannot be fully satisfied or answered from thence — but 
will in the full latitude, through the universal church in 
these times be made clear, from the recent evidences 
that we have, viz., from the consent of the Greek and Latin 
fathers, who generally resolve that bishops are those suc- 
cessors."! The cel6]3rated Plenry Dodweli has probably 
never been surpassed in laborious ecclesiastical learning, 
and he devoted it all to the establishment of this system of 
exclusiveness on behalf of episcopal powers and authority. 
Now this high Church champion, after all his toil to estab- 
lish these claims, fairly gives up all direct Scriptural au- 
thority for them. "The sacred writers," says he, '^ no- 
where professedly explain the offices or ministries them- 
selves, as to their nature or extent, which surely they 
would have done if any particular form had been presented 

* Religion of Protestants, chap, vii, sec. 56. 
t On the Power of the Keys, Preface. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 27 

for perpetual duration."* And the very learned Bishop 
Beveridge himself, another exclusionist, makes substan- 
tially the same acknowledgment. He says, " Nothing can 
be determined from what the apostles did in their early 
proceedings in preaching the gospel as to the establish- 
ment of any certain form of church government for 
perpetual duration."! 

But let us proceed to the attempts made to find some- 
thing in Scripture to support this scheme. 

§ 1. — The Commission of Jesus Christ to the Apostles. 

Their first argument is taken from the commission of 
Christ to the apostles : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, 
lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. 
Amen. "I The scheme of high Churchmen asserts that 
this commission belongs to bishops alone^ as the exclusive 
successors of the apostles, and as the sole rulers and 
ordainers of all other ministers to the end of the world. 
The proof is wanting : though Archbishop Potter tells us, 
that the passage before us " contains a full declaration of 
our Lord's intentioiiP^ It would be idle to quote the at- 
tempts to supply this want of proofs by the reiterated asser- 
tions of these writers on the subject. The reader may see 
them in Bishop Taylor, sec. 3, Dr. Hook's Two Sermons, 
&;c. The great reformers of the English Church thought 
very diflerently from these men ; for they appointed this 
very commission as a part of the solemn office for ordain- 
ing all presbyters : thus most decidedly determining that 
they believed this commission to belong to all presbyters, 
as well as to bishops. There is not, indeed, a single 
syllable in the passage about distinct orders of bishops 
and presbyters. The whole commission plainly belongs 
equally to every minister of Christ, in every age, as it does 
to a bishop. The Lord made no distinction ; and the ser- 
vant that attempts it, attempts a tyranny over his brethren 

* De Nupero Schismate, sec. 14. 

t Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Vind., p. 317. Lond., 1678, 4to. 

+ Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. o Church Govern., p. 121, ed. Bagster, 1838. 



28 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

for which he has no divine warrant. To see that our 
Lord intended no such thing as this proud scheme, let us 
hear him in other places on the relation of ministers, one 
to another. " But be not ye called rahhi : for 07ie is your 
Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren. And call 
no man your father upon the earth : for one is your Father, 
which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters : for 
one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest 
among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall 
exalt himself shall be abased ; and he that shall humble 
himself shall be exalted."* " But Jesus called them to 
him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are 
accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship 
over them ; and their great ones exercise authority upon 
them. But so shall it not be among you : but whosoever 
will be great among you, shall be your minister : and 
whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of 
all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered 
unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for 
many."t The only just conclusions that can be drawn 
from these passages are, that all ministers of the gospel 
are equal by divine authority ; and that the only important 
distinctions before God wall be those of deeper piety, more 
devoted labours, and greater usefulness to the church of God. 
" Whosoever will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." 
Great dependance is placed by others upon our Saviour's 
words on John xx, 21-23, " Then said Jesus to them again, 
Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent me, even so 
send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on 
them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : 
whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them : 
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.''^ Now 
this is just as inconclusive as the other ; nay, the very 
indefiniteness of the Saviour's language, in both passages, 
is against them ; for, had he meant what they would have 
him to mean, he would, in a matter, according to this 
scheme, so all-important, have said so ; but he did not say 
so, which proves decidedly that he did not mean so. And 
here also, again, it is unfortunate for these writers, as be- 
longing to the Church of England, that her reformers have 
indisputably shown, that, in their views, this whole pas- 

* Matt, xxiii, 8-12. f Mark x, 42-45. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 29 

sage, whatever power and authority it conveys, belongs 
PROPERLY to presbyters, as well as to bishops, by applying 
the whole to presbyters in the solemn act of their ordination 
to the ministry. We speak of the Book of Orders, or the 
Office for ordaining^ Priests (presbyters) and Bishops, as 
it was constituted by the great English reformers ; and as 
it continued till 1661, when it was altered to what it is at 
present. See section vii, of this Essay. 

^ 2. — The Claim of Afostlesrit for Bishops, 

But it is said, and contended for, that bishops are now 
what the apostles were in their time. To be sure some 
things are excepted, as the pretence would otherwise im- 
mediately refute itself. Let us hear Bishop Taylor : " In 
the extraordinary priviledges of the apostles they had no 
successors, therefore of necessity a successor must be 
constituted in the ordinary office of apostolate. Now 
what is this ordinary office ? Most certainly since the 
extraordinary (as is evident) was only a helpe for the 
founding and beginning, the other are such as are neces- 
sary for the perpetuating of a church. Now in clear evi- 
dence of sense, these offices and powers are preaching, 
baptizing, consecrating, ordaining, and governing. For 
these were necessary for the perpetuating of a church, 
unless men could be Christians that were never chris- 
tened, nourished up to life without the eucharist, become 
priests without calling of God and ordination, have their 
sinnes pardoned without absolution, be members and parts 
and sonnes of a church whereof there is no coadunation, 
no authority, no governour. These the apostles had with- 
out all question, and whatsoever they had, they had from 
Christ, and these were eternally necessary: these, then, 
were the offices of the apostolate, which Christ promised 
to assist for ever, and this is that which toe noiv call the 
order and office of episcopacy. The apostolate and epis- 
copacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices 
which were ordinary and perpetuall, are in Scripture 
clearely all one in ordinary ministration, and their names 
are often used in common to signify exactly the same 
ordinary function."* ''''Imposition of hands is a duty and 

^ Pa'res 14, 15. 



30 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

office necessary for the perpetuating of a cliiirch, ne gens 
sit vnius cBtatis, least it expire in one age : this power of 
imposition of hands for ordination was fix't upon the apos- 
tles and apostolike men, and not communicated to the 72 
disciples or presbyters ; for the apostles, and apostolike 
men, did so de facto, and were commanded to doe so, and 
the 72 never did so, therefore this office and ministry of 
the apostolate is distinct and superior to that oi presbyters, 
and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the 
church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of 
issue and succession, and therefore as perpetuall as the 
clergy, as the Church itself."* 

'' For farther confirmation," says Bingham, " of what 
has been asserted, it v\^ill not be amiss here to subjoin 
next a short account of the titles of honour which were 
given to bishops in the primitive church. The most an- 
cient of these is the title of apostles ; which, in a large 
and secondary sense, is thought by many to have been the 
original name for bishops, before the name bishop was ap- 
propriated to their order. For at fast they suppose the 
names bishop and presbyter to have been common names 
for all of the first and second order ; during which time, 
the appropriate name for bishops, to distinguish them from 
mere presbyters, was that of apostles. Thus Theodoret 
says expressly, ' The same persons were anciently called 
promiscuously both bishops and presbyters, while those 
who are now called bishops, were' (then) ' called apostles. 
But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated 
to such only as were apostles indeed ; and then the name 
bishop was given to those who before were called apostles.' 
Thus, he says, Epaphroditus was the apostle of the Phi- 
lippians, and Titus the apostle of the Cretans, and Timothy 
the apostle of the Asiaticks. And this he repeats in seve- 
ral other places of his writings." 

" The author under the name of St. Ambrose asserts 
the same thing ; ' That all bishops were called apostles at 
first.' And therefore, he says, that ' St. Paul, to distin- 
* guish himself from such apostles, calls himself an apostle, 
not of man, nor sent by man to preach, as those others 
were, who were chosen and sent by the apostles to con- 
firm the churches.' Amalarius cites another passage out 

* Page 27. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 31 

of this same author, which speaks more fully to the pur- 
pose : ' They,' says he, ' who are now called bishops, 
were originally called apostles : but the holy apostles being 
DEAD, they who were ordained after them to govern the 
churches, could not arrive to the excellency of those first ; 
nor had they the testimony of miracles, but were in many 
respects inferior to them ; therefore they thought it not 
DECENT to assume to themselves the name of apostles ; 
but, dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name 
of the presbytery, and they themselves were called 
bishops.' " 

" This is what those authors infer from the identity of 
the names, bishop and presbyter, in the first age : they do 
not thence argue (as some who abuse their authority have 
done since) that therefore bishops and presbyters w-ere all 
one ; but they think that bishops w^ere then distinguished 
by a more appropriate name, and more expressive of their 
superiority, which was that of secondary apostles."* 

So Dr. Hook : — " The officer whom we now call a 
bishop was at first called an apostle, although afterward it 
was thought better to confine the title of apostle to those 
who had seen the Lord Jesus, while their successors, 
exercising the saine rights and authority, though unen- 
dowed with miraculous powers, contented themselves with 
the desio;nation of bishops."! - 

The importance of these extracts must apologize for 
their length. Powerful efforts are sometimes made to 
hold up this system by claiming authority for it from the 
precedents of Scriptural bishops. This, however, its 
ablest advocates seem to be conscious is untenable ground. 
They find something more indefinite about the office of 
apostles. This makes it more easy to indulge in supposi- 
tions and assertions. Besides, the scheme is an imposing 
one : sole, exclusive successors of the apostles ! What 
may they not do, if they can establish this ? The world 
must bow to their awful authority. The pope has shown 
us what may be accomplished in subjugating the bodies, 
and souls, and substance of mankind, by one such suc- 
cessor : what v>^ould be the state of the world, then, were 
every bishop established as a pope in his diocess ? To 

* Page 21, vol. i, fol. Lond., 1726. 

t Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment. 



32 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

say this is all exaggeration, is to contradict all past history 
and experience. 

The nature of the subject, the boldness of these claims, 
and the confidence with which they are urged, demand a 
careful investigation of this apostleship of bishops. But 
before we enter upon that investigation, it will not be irre- 
levant to notice, how these and similar advocates of this 
high scheme of episcopacy disagree with each other. 

Bishop Taylor declares that, if this high Church scheme 
be not the same as was in the apostles' times, and if they 
" cannot show divine authority for it, they must be called 
usurpersy"^ But the famous Henry Dodwell, one of its 
most learned and strenuous advocates, affirms, " That all 
the reasoning from which men conclude that the whole 
model of ecclesiastical discipline may be extracted from 
the writings of the New Testament, is very precarious. 
There is," says he, " no passage of any sacred writer which 
openly professes this design. Indeed there is not one 
which so treats of ecclesiastical government, as if the 
author, or the writer's author, the Holy Spirit, had in- 
tended to describe any one form of church government as 
being to remain everywhere as for ever inviolate. The 
sacred penmen have nowhere declared, with sufficient clear- 
ness, how great a change must take place in church go- 
vernment when the churches should first withdraw' from 
the communion of the synagogues. They nowhere clearly 
show how much was allowed to the personal gifts of the 
Holy Ghost, and how much to places and ojffices. They 
nowhere, with decided clearness, distinguish the extraordi- 
nary officers, who were not to outlive that age, from the 
ordinary ministers who were not to cease till the second 
coming of Christ. Indeed, all things of this nature were 
then so generally known, and they so suppose this know- 
ledge in what they say, that they never for the sake of 
posterity explain them ; concerning themselves only with 
present things, and leaving the future. They nowhere pro- 
fessedly explain the offices or ministries themselves, as to 
their nature or extent ; which surely they would have done 
if any particular form had been prescribed for perpetual 
duration."! 

The learned Dr. Bentley declares, that " our bishops, 

* Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41. f De Nupero Schismate, sec. 14. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 33 

with all Christian antiquity, never thought themselves and 
their order to succeed the Scripture 'ETTiGfconoc, (bishops,) 
but the Scripture Apog-oXoc, (apostles:) they were dcaSo- 
')(pi rG)v ATiOg'o?.G)v, the successors of the apostles. — The 
presbyters, therefore, while the apostles lived, were 
EiTTLGKOTTOi, bishops, oversccrs."* Yet Dodwell, superior 
to Bentley in ecclesiastical learning, positively affirms, 
that " the office of the apostles perished with the apostles ; 
in which office there never was any succession to any of 
them, except to Judas the traitor."! 

Let the reader also remark, here, that the scheme of the 
apostleship of modern hishoips fiiUi/ coiicedes the point, that 
bishops and presbyters were, in the apostles' days, one and 
the SAME order. For these advocates never reckon more 
than three orders in the ministry, namely, (1.) bishops, 
whose appropriate name, they say, is apostles ; (2.) priests 
or presbyters ; and (3.) deacons. Now were we to reckon 
Scriptural bishops and presbyters as distinct orders, this 
would make, for the apostles' days,ybwr orders : and would 
contradict their own enumeration of orders. It follows, 
therefore, that their plan of apostleship fully concedes that 
Scriptural bishops and presbyters not only had these names 
in common, so that presbyters were called bishops, and 
bishops were called presbyters indifferently, but that they 
were really one and the same order. Accordingly, Dr. 
Hammond says, that presbyters, as mentioned in Acts xi, 
30, were bishops ; also in Acts xiv, 23, and other places. 
And he says that the Avord presbyter was ''fitly made use 
of by the apostles and writers of the New Testament, and 
affixed to the governors of the Christian church." — " And 
although this title of presbyter have been also extended to 
a second order in the church, and is now only in use for 
them, under the name of presbyter, yet in the Scripture 
times, it belonged principally, if not alone, to bishops, 
there being no eviderice that any of that second order were 
then instituted." In plain English, the doctor fairly grants 
that presbyters, in Scripture times,weYe bishops, and bishops 
were presbyters : that is, they were one and the same order 
and office. And Bentley affirms that *' presbyters, while 
the apostles lived, were bishops." 

* Rundolph's Enchir. TheoL, vol. v, p. 204. 

t De Nnpero Schismatc, pp. 55, 68, ed. Lond., 1704, 12mo. 

2* 



34 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

We proceed, however, to investigate further these claims 
of the rights and authority of apostles for modern bishops. 
Let us consider who7n it is said they succeed, and to what 
they succeed. The claim amounts to this, that modern 
apostles, by voluntary humility called bishops, are the 
exclusive successors of the ^zi;e/fe apostles ; that they suc- 
ceed them in those rights and in that authority which no 
other order of ministers possessed : and' that this inherit- 
ance is indivisible, that is, that it cannot belong to tivo 
different orders of men at the same time ; yea, that it is 
itself the very essence of the order of modern apostles ; so 
that no individual could possess it but he w^ould, hy the 
very fact of this possession, immediately hecome an apostle 
himself. 

To establish their scheme, these advocates must show 
two things : 1st, that the order of the twelve apostles was 
to be an ordinary, standing order in the church ; and 2dly, 
they must show divine law, positive divine law, for the 
exclusive succession of modern bishops to the rights and 
authority of these apostles. For if the order of the twelve 
apostles was extraordinary and temporary, the claim to 
succeed them in that which had no continuance beyond 
themselves is a vain presumption : and if there be no 
divine law for giving to bishops the exclusive rights and 
authority of the twelve, then the assumption of such rights 
and authority, without divine law, is an impious assump- 
tion, and an attempt at an intolerable usurpation in the 
church of Christ. 

This being the state of the question, on this point, we 
come to inquire into the proofs. 

The proofs produced are of tvv^o kinds : first, Scriptural; 
secondly, ecclesiastical. As this is a question of divine 
right. Scriptural authorit}^ alone can decide it. Ecclesias- 
tical or human authority, as authority, is impertinent, and 
can decide nothing one way or another. Hov/ever, we 
shall examine it in its place. 

First, then, the Scriptural proofs. The claims being so 
high and awful, the proofs must be clear, plain, and povv^er- 
ful. Dr. Barrow's remarks on the matter of proofs as to 
the pope's supremacy will hold with equal force as to the 
supremacy of bishops. We shall insert them, with w^orcis 
in brackets, showing their application to this system. 



I 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 35 

^^ If," says he, " God had designed the bishop of Rome 
\hishops as supreme over ministers and people] to be for a 
perpetual com*se of times sovereign monarch [monarchs^ 
of his church, it may reasonably be supposed that he would 
expressly have declared his mind in the case, it being a 
point of greatest importance of all that concern the admi- 
nistration of his kingdom in the world. Princes do not 
use to send their viceroys unfurnished with patents clearly 
signifying their commission, that no man out of ignorance 
or doubts concerning that point, excusably may refuse 
compliance ; and, in all equity, prGrnulgation is requisite 
to the establishment of any law, or exacting obedience. 
But in all the pandects of divine revelation, the bishop of 
Rome [or, the supremacy of bishops,] is not so much as 
ONCE mentioned, either by name, or by character, or by 
probable intimation ; they cannot hook him [the?n] in other- 
wise than by straining hard, and framing a long chain of 
consequences, each of which is too subtle for to constrain 
any man's persuasion. — ^In the Levitical law all things 
concerning the high priest ; not only his designation, suc- 
cession, consecration, duty, power, raainteaance, privilege 
of its high priest, [of bishops as high priests,] whereby he 
[they] might be directed in the administration of his [their] 
office, [of their supremacy,] and knov/ what observance to 
require. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties 
of all sorts, and doth not forget frequently to press duties 
of respect and obedience toward particular governors of 
the church ; is it not strange that it should never bestow 
one precept, whereby v/e might be instructed and admo- 
nished to pay our duty to the universal Pastor ? [to these 
supreme pastors?] especially considering, that God, who 
directed the pens of the apostles, and who intended that 
their writings should continue for the perpetual instruction 
of Christians, did foresee how requisite such a precept 
would be to secure that duty ; for if but one such pjecept 
did appear, it would do the business, and void all contesta- 
tion about it."* Thus also speaks the learned Stillingfleet 
in his celebrated Irenicum : '' We shall dissuss the nature 
of a DIVINE RIGHT, aiid show whereon an unalterable 
divine right must be founded." Yery well : now high 

* Dr. Barrow's Treatise on the Pope's Sinn-emacv, Supp. 5, p. 155, 
6tc., ed. Lend., 1630, 4to. 



36 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Churchmen say that modem bishops have divine right to 
" the rights and authority of apostles." Let Stillingfieet 
state the law of the case.* " Jus (law) is that which makes 
a thing to become a duty : so jus quasi jussum, and jussa 
jura, as Festus explains it ; that is, that whereby a thing 
is not only licitum (lawful) in men's lawful power to do it 
or no, but is made dehitujn, (duty,) and is constituted a duty 
by t]iQ force and virtue of a divine command. — Whatso- 
ever binds Christians as an universal standing law, must 
be clearly revealed as such, and laid down in Scripture in 
such EVIDENT TERMS, as all who have their senses exer- 
cised therein may discern to have been the will of Christ, 
that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the 
world's end, as is clear in the case of baptism, and the 
Lord's supper." Let, then, such a law, such " a divine 
command, an universal standing law, clearly revealed as 
such, and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms, as 
all who have their senses exercised therein may discern 
to have been the will of Christ, that it should perpetually 
oblige all believers to the world's end" — let such a law be 
shown for the claim of the rights and authority of apostles 
as belonging to modern bishops, and the question is ended. 
We all cordially submit to, and acquiesce in, such a divine 
law. But, if no such law be produced ; if no such law 
can be produced ; if no such law ever w^as promulgated ; 
then, to urge such a claim upon the consciences of all 
other ministers and people, and, on this baseless assump- 
tion, to pronounce all their ordinances void, all their minis- 
ters as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ; what is this but to 
curse those whom Christ has blessed ? what, but to intro- 
duce a system of usurpation in the church of God, essen- 
tially destructive of its peace to the end of the world ? 

This for the nature of the proofs. But to proceed : it 
will be proper here, in order to avoid ambiguity, to notice 
the different significations of the term apostle. The 
general meaning of the term apostle is, one sent, a mis- 
sionary, a messenger. Accordingly, when the Saviour se^it 
forth the twelve, he also, saith St. Luke, " named them 
apostles^ These are called the apostles, by way of emi- 
nence. Eusebius says,_ " The Lord Jesus Christ called 
twelve apostles, whom alone among the rest of his dis- 

^ Stillingfleet's Irenicum, part i, chap. i. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 3T 

ciples he denominated with peculiar honour, his apostles."* 
They are also called '' the twelve" in various parts of the 
New Testament ; the " apostles of Christ^'' in opposition 
to apostles of men, or of churches, 1 Cor. i, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 1 ; 
xi, 13, and in many other places. The term, when applied 
to others, is simply " apostle," or " the apostle," or " mes- 
senger of the churches." 

The term apostle is also applied in the New Testament 
to several other individuals in a more general, and less 
dignified sense. It is, in this sense, applied to designate 
all who were sent to preach the gospel ; the twelve apostles, 
and all other preachers. This is proved by the following 
passages : — Matt, xxiii, 34, compared with Luke xi, 49. 
For the apostles, as mentioned in Luke, are explained in 
Matthew by being called " wise men and scribes ;" that is, 
all teachers or preachers of the gospel. So Dr. Hammond 
in Matt, xxiii, 34, " Prophets and others learned in your 
religion, which receiving the faith (Matt, xiii, 52) shall 
preach it to you ;" and therefore, in Luke xi, 49, he trans- 
lates the word " apostle" by the word " messenger ;" and 
so Tremellius translates the Syriac there. Dr. Whitby, 
in Matt, xxiii, 34, explains " wise men and scribes," by 
" true interpreters of the law and the prophets," and in- 
stances Stephen the deacon as one of them. Thus Calvin, 
Mr. S. Clarke, and Dr. A. Clarke, interpret these passages 
to mean all preachers of the gospel ; and, indeed, they do 
not seem capable of any other interpretation. In this 
sense, several of the fathers call the seventy disciples, 
sent forth by our Lord to preach the gospel, apostles. 
Apollos, who was nothing more than a lay preacher, is 
also in this sense called an " apostle :" compare 1 Cor. iv, 9 
with V, 6 ; so is Barnabas, Acts xiv, 14 ; and see 2 Cor. 
xi, 13, with V, 15 ; Rom. xvi, 7 ; Rev. ii, 2. 

The word apostle seems, also, to be applied in the New 
Testament in a more general sense still, to signify any 
messenger on public business, v/hether a preacher of the 
gospel or not. Though v/e notice this sense of the term 
apostle last, yet it is, in truth, the most proper sense of the 
word ; and the former meanings only show particular ap- 
plications of this general one. Thus Dr. Hammond on 
Luke vi, 13: "The name (apostle) hath no more in it" 

* Eiiseb. E. H., lib. i, cap. 10. 



38 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

than to " signify messenger on legate." " Among the Jews 
all sorts of messengers are called apostles. So Ahijah 
(1 Kings xiv, 6) is called onXrjgog Atto^o/Io^, that is, a 
harsh apostle, or messenger of ill news. And in the Old 
Testament the word is no otherwise used. Among the 
Talmudists it is used of them that were, by the rulers of 
the synagogues, sent out to receive the tenths and dues 
that belonged to the synagogues. And, in like manner, 
the messengers of the church that carried their liberality, 
or letters congratulatory, from one to another, are by Igna- 
tius called -^sodpoiioL and d^eoTTpeopvral, the divine carriers, 
or embassadors ; and so in the Tlieodosian Codex tit. de 
Judceis, apostoli are those that v^^ere sent by the patriarch 
at a set time to require the gold and silver due to them." 
Thus the persons who were chosen hy the churches to carry 
the money collected in Greece for the poor brethren at 
Jerusalem are called the apostles ; that is, as our trans- 
lators justly render it, " the messengers of the churches^'* 
2 Cor. viii, 23. This is explained by the apostle Paul 
himself, where he says, in 1 Cor. xvi, 3, " x\nd when I 
come, whomsoever ye shall apj>rove by your letters, them 
will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem :" as in 
2 Cor. viii, 19, he speaks of them as '• chosen of the churches 
to travel with us with this grace," v/ith this liberal contri- 
bution. The reader v/ill observe that St. Paul does not 
number Titus with these apostles, or, more properly, mes- 
sengers ; and for this plain reason, these messengers were 
persons chosen or ordained hy the churches to this business, 
— Titus was NOT ; but only sent in company with them 
by the apostle ; they, therefore, were messengers of the 
churches, and they only, 2 Cor. viii, 23, " Whether any 
do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper 
concerning you : or our brethren be inquired of, they are 
the MESSENGERS of the churches, and the glory of Christ." 
In Phil, ii, 25, it seems to be used again to mean a public 
messenger, a messenger of the church, sent on their 
public business. Bishop Taylor here actually* perverts 

* No man's name should shield him when he perverts the truth. 
This is not the only instance in which Bishop Taylor has been guilty 
of perverting the truth to serve a system. Quoting the annotation of 
Zonaras, p. 280, upon the twelfth canon of the Laodicean council, 
" Popidi ,<iaffrao-iis olim episcopi eligebantur," he translates, " of old 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 39 

the sense by a false translation. He renders avvepyog, 
my " compeer/'' in order to raise Epaphroditus, as a proto- 
type of modern bishops, to equality with apostles. He 
would thus make Priscilla and Aquila (Rom. xvi, 3) 9,pos- 
tolic compeers, rovg ovvepyovg fiov ; and perhaps Priscilla 
would stand as a prototype for a race of female bishops ! 
Will he also make apostles themselves compeers with 
God, because they were workers together with him, Qeov 
yap eoiiev avvepyoc ? 1 Cor. iii, 9. The apostle's language, 
however, is distinct, as before :— " Yet I suppose it neces- 
sary to send to you Epaphroditus, ?n7/ companion in labour, 
avvegyov (lov, but your messenger, vixG)v6e arrog'oXov,''^ 
Phil, ii, 25. Dodwell has the candour and good sense to 
see this. " If it were true," says he, '' that these secondary 
apostles of the churches were the apostles of the churches 
for no other reason than this, that they were sent to plaiit 
churches ; there would in this view be no ground on which 
they could be distinguished from the primary apostles : for 
the apostles of Christ were sent forth and appointed by 
Christ himself to this office oi planting churches. Ephes. 
iv, 11-13. But we may easily gather from the Epistle to 

time bishops were chosen not v/ithout the suffrage of the people," 
instead of " by the suffrage of the people ;' ' and this is done evidently 
to weaken or alter the sense of the passage, as a proof of the people's 
power formerly in choosing the bishop " by their suffrages." He tells 
his reader, at p. 55, that Jerome is dissuading Heliodorus from taking 
on him " the great burden of the episcopal office." Now Jerome 
commences his discourse on the subject by saying, " Provocabis ad 
CLEROs'?" — "Do you now come to the clergy]" But then Jerome, 
in the ne.xt line, speaks of these clergy, without any distinction, as 
" SUCCEEDING to the apostolical degree." Here is the secret. So 
Jerome must be made to speak to Heliodorus about " the great burden 
of the episcopal office V Again, in the very same page : " Feed the 
flock of God which is among you, said St. Peter to the bishops of 
Ponfus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Similia enim suc- 
cessoribus suis Petrus scripsit prsecepta, saith Theodorus — St. Peter 
gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him," 
p 55. Here he finds Theodoret speaking of apostolical successors ; 
so they must be made bishops, though the sacred text expressly says 
they w^ere " presbyters !" 1 Pet. v, 1-3. There is a very reprehen- 
sible attempt of the same kind upon the eighteenth canon of the coun- 
cil of Ancyra, at p. 176. The Church of England divines never spare 
the Popish divines when they detect them in such tricks ; they boldly 
charge them with " forgeries and corruptions of councils and fathers." 
They do right. " Thou that judgest another, thou condemnest thy- 
self," if thou doest any of the same things. 



40 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the Philippians to what the office of Epaphroditus, as an 
apostle or messenger, referred, (chap, iv, 18,) * But I have 
all, and abound : I am full, having received of Epaphrodi- 
tus the things lohich loere sent from you, an odour of a 
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.' 
His office, therefore, belonged to pecuniary affairs. Rem 
igitur pecuniariam spectahat ilia legatior"^ He treats this 
subject well to the end of the section ; but we must study 
brevity. 

Here, then, we see the word apostle, or apostles, signi- 
nifies in the New Testament, first, ^' the twelve apostles," 
so designated by way of eminence, as distinguished from 
all others ; secondly, it signifies, in a more general and 
less dignified sense, all preachers of the gospel; and, 
thirdly, it signifies any public messenger, as " the messenger 
of the churches," 2 Cor. viii, 23 ; Phil, ii, 23. 

Here let the reader remark : 

First, that the application of the name apostle to the 
bishops of modern times, in the second and third senses, 
will give them no prerogatives over any other ministers 
of the gospel : it must, then, be claimed for them by high 
Churchmen in the first sense, as applied to designate the 
twelve ALONE ; this is their claim. Let this be strictly 
kept in mind, as these advocates often sophistically shift 
their terms. 

Secondly, observe, that from the exclusive nature of the 
twelve apostles' office, none besides themselves could pos- 
sibly possess it during their lives ; consequently, nothing 
possessed by any other ministers during the apostles^ lives 
belonged to this exclusive office. To see the truth of the 
former part of this sentence : suppose that any other 
ministers, during the lives of the twelve apostles, pos- 
sessed what are called their prerogatives in common with 
them, (the solecism must be excused,) it is clear as the 
light that such things ceased to be the prerogatives of the 
twelve the moment they were possessed by others in 
common with them. This could not be succession, but 
possession in common. It follows, therefore, that from 
the exclusive nature of the twelve apostles' office, none 
besides themselves could possibly possess it during their 
lives ; and, consequently, that nothing possessed by any 
* Dodwelli Diss. Cyprian, No. 6, § ]7. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 41 

Other ministers, during the apostles' lives, belonged to 
these exclusive prerogatives. 

Thirdly, then, it follows necessarily, that as Timothy, 
and Titus, and Epaphroditus, were not of the twelve, no 
argument can be deduced from any thing in their case in 
favour of the apostleship of modern bishops. Yet these 
advocates fill their volumes with tirades about Timothy, 
Titus, and Epaphroditus, as prototypes of modern bishops. 

Fourthly. To retort their own argument about names 
and things upon themselves — it would signify nothing for 
the divine right of the prerogatives of bishops were they 
sometimes called apostles by name, for all preachers of the 
gospel were sometimes called by that name ; they must 
prove the things apart from the name ; that bishops, as 
apostles, have what no other preachers of the gospel have. 
This brings us to things, to the prerogative of the twelve 
apostles : the proud claim of this system. 

What, then, were the prerogatives of the twelve apostles, 
EXCLUSIVELY posscsscd by them, as distinguished from 
all other gospel ministers whatever? They were the 
following : — 

1. Immediate vocation. Gal. i, 1, "Paul, an apostle, 
(not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God 
the Father, who raised him from the dead.") 

The ordination of an apostle, in the strict sense of the 
word, was not only immediately by Christ himself, without 
any imposition of hands, but it was complete at once, without 
the individual having passed through any other grades or 
offices in the ministry preparatory to it. Now no bishop 
was ever appointed immediately by Christ himself: high 
Churchmen maintain imposition of hands as necessary to 
their ordination ; and, what is perhaps most to the point 
in hand, no man, on the scheme of high Churchmen, can 
be made a bishop vAio has not previously received what 
they call the indelible character of the priesthood, in his 
ordination to the office of a preshyter. A bishop, who had 
never been a presbyter, is considered incapable of admin- 
istering the sacraments, and of conferring orders.'* How 
is it possible, then, that bishops should be properly apostles, 
when the ordination of the one so essentially differs from 
the other, both in the form and essence of the ordination, 

* Field on the Church, p. 157, fol., 1628. 



42 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and in the qualifications of the individuals to be ordained ? 
Scriptural bishops, we know, were ordained such at once, 
without passing through any preparatory grades in the 
ministry ; but, then, the reason is plain, viz., that, in the 
Scriptures, bishops and presbyters were one and the same 
office. 

2. Apostles were taught the gospel by immediate reve- 
lation : Gal. i, 12, " For I neither received it of man, 
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus 
Christ." 

3. They were infallible teachers of it to others : Gal. 
i, 8, 12, " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 
any other gospel unto you than that which we have 
preached unto you, let him be accursed. For I neither 
received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the 
revelation of Jesus Christ." 

4. They had a commission of universal authority. 
2 Cor. X, 13-16; xiii, 10; Rom. i, 14-16. 

They had a universal commission of divine infallible 
authority, as to the doctrine of faith and morals. It is not 
clear that they had any absolute authority in any thing 
else. They ordained elders or presbyters : so did Barna- 
bas ; so did Timothy and Titus, who were not of the 
twelve ; and so did presbyters, they ordained Timothy 
himself. But, when ministers had been ordained and 
appointed to any church, there is no decisive proof that 
the apostles alone governed those ministers. Dodwell 
remarks justly, that '^ their chief work was rather the 
planting of churches, than the ruling of churches."* 
Ignatius, the oracle of high Churchmen, says, " It is not 
lawful without the bishop, neither to baptize, nor to cele- 
brate the holy communion. He that does any thing with- 
out his knowledge, ministers unto the devil." On the high 
Church scheme, the apostles, during their lives, were the 
only real bishops. Now did the apostles claim any such 
authority a-s this over every special act of other ministers ? 
Never ! The thing, indeed, was impossible. How could 
they be everywhere to appoint every baptism, and every 
minute detail of ministerial duty ? But there is not only 

■^ Dodvvelli Diss. Cyprian., dissert, vi, sec. 17. " Illorum (Apos- 
tolorum) opera prascipua in disseminandis potius, quam regendis, Ec- 
clesiis collccata est." 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 43 

no proof that the apostles alone governed ministers as well 
as the church, but there is no direct proof to the contrary. 
The ministers of the seven churches were some of them 
remiss, and some wicked : who, then, takes authority to 
correct and judge them ? The apostle John ? No ; he that 
walks rn the midst of the golden candlesticks : he does it. 
To say that John might, but did not, would be to say that 
the Saviour should first have rebuked John for this remiss- 
ness ; yet nothing of the kind is found in the divine mes- 
sage, but every thing to the contrary. It may be asked, 
What cure is there for wicked ministers ? AVe answer. The 
Scriptural method is, to teach the people io forsake them ; 
and to leave them Xo the judgment of God. This as to 
the church cathc'i • : of course, every particular church 
has the right to expel bad ministers, as well as bad men, 
from its communion. 

5. Apostles had the power not only of working miracles, 
but also of COMMUNICATING miraculous powers to others. 
Acts viii, 14-19 ; xix, 6 ; 1 Tim. i, 6. 

I believe there is nothing more than these five preroga- 
tives that belong exclusively to the apostles : all other 
ministers preached and baptized. It is most certain that 
others, especially presbyters, ordained persons to the 
ministry. 1 Tim. iv, 14. Presbyters also ruled or 
GOVERNED the church. Acts xx, 28 : 1 Tim. v, 17, " Let 
the elders (presbyters) that rule well be counted worthy 
of double honour, especially they who labour in the word 
and doctrine." 

In which, then, and in what number of these prerogatives 
do modern bishops succeed the iioelvc apostles 1 Have 
hey had immediate vocation, not of men, but by Jesus 
Christ ? Are they taught the gospel by immediate revela- 
tion ? These advocates dare not claim either of these 
prerogatives. Are they infallihle teachers of others ? No. 
Have they a commission of universal infallible authority, 
as to doctrines of faith and morals, in all churches ? Have 
they universal jurisdiction, as bishops ? This they know 
to be a contradiction to other parts of their scheme, viz., 
that there can be only one bishop in one diocess. Have 
they, then, the power of communicating the miraculous 
gifts of the Holy Ghost? The rite of confirmation is 
founded on the assumption of this, or it is founded on 



44 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

nothing that was the prerogative of the twelve. The 
assumption confounds the advocates ; to give it up, gives 
up their cause. The claim, therefore, of the prerogatives 
of the twelve apostles for modern bishops, by these high 
Church advocates, is utterly unsustained by the New Tes- 
tament. This decides the whole matter. The claim is as 
baseless as it is bold. No names on earth ought to save 
it, for a moment, from the reprobation of the whole Chris- 
tian church. 

Thus much for Scriptural authority, both as to the 
name and the thing ; and no other authority can decide 
the question. However, though ecclesiastical authority 
will be discussed at length in the subsequent sections, yet 
as it will give a unity and completeness to the present 
article, we shall here briefly clear the subject of eccle- 
siastical authority. 

What ecclesiastical authority, then, is there for this 
claim of modern bishops, being, as apostles, really such, 
and exclusively the successors of the apostles 1 Some 
readers may be surprised, when I say, that there is not a 
single Christian father who says so: not one. What! 
not Theodoret ? No, not Theodoret ! Hear him : he says, 
" Those who are now called bishops were (anciently) 
called apostles. But shortly after, the name of apostles 
was appropriated to such as were apostles indeed, aXrj'&cog 
AiTog'oXoi, TRULY apostles." Here, then, even Theodoret 
declares that bishops are not apostles truly ; that is, they 
are truly, as to the prerogatives of the twelve, not 
apostles at all I What, then, is the meaning of his ambi- 
guous expression, " Those who are now called bishops 
were anciently called apostles ?" Well, in the first place, 
he guards his own statement by declaring that those now 
called bishops are not " truly apostles." Wliat are they 
then ? What you please, but not truly apostles. It is 
no matter to this argument what you call them. He says 
they were called bishops ; and his language imports that 
they then, in his time, exercised authority having some 
resemblance to what those anciently and truly called 
apostles, exercised. This is speaking to a fact, and not 
to the law of the case. We grant the truth of the fact : 
but what does it prove ? That they were really apostles ? 
No : Theodoret himself positively dc?iies that as fact ; 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 45 

and shows, that, even in his day, they were believed not 
to be truly apostles. And Ambrose, as cited by Amalarius, 
positively declares, that the ancient bishops were so far 
from thinking, with our moderns, that apostle was truly 
the appropriate denomination for bishops, that they thought 
it NOT DECENT to assumc to themselves the name of 
apostles. Thus we find their own authorities destroy 
their scheme. 

Never was there a more bold and baseless fabrication 
palmed upon the public than this, that apostle was the 
APPROPRIATE name for bishops. The authors of it catch 
at some ambiguous expressions in writers of the fifth cen- 
tury ; but what evidence do they bring from the Scriptures, 
or the purest and earliest writers of the Christian church ? 
The Scriptures give no evidence for it, but the contrary. 
In those authors whom high Churchmen quote with the 
greatest triumph, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Cyprian, all the 
evidence is against this position of apostle being the 
appropriate name for bishop. Everywhere their highest 
declamations are made for them under the name — not of 
apostles, but of bishops. What a humiliation to men of 
learning, to lend themselves to the propagation of such 
strange perversions of the facts of the early history of the 
church ! 

But does not Ambrose say, that bishops were, by eccle- 
siastical writers, called apostles at first 1 He does. But 
he does not say that bishops exclusively were called 
apostles. He knew better. " Many were called apostles 
by way of imitatio7i,^^* says Eusebius ; an earlier and better 
authority on such subjects than Theodoret or Ambrose. 
So he calls " Thaddeus, one of the seventy, ^^ an apostle. 
The learned Valesius's note on the place is as follows : — 
" Apostle here is to be taken in a large sense. After the 
same manner every nation and city termed them apostles, 
from whom they first received the truth of the gospel. 
This name was not only given to the twelve, but all their 

DISCIPLES, COMPANIONS, and ASSISTANTS, WCrC GENERALLY 

called APOSTLES." They all acted as missionaries in 
spreading the gospel. The word apostle means a mis- 
sionary. See, then, the goodly company of apostles ! 
Indeed Suicer shows that women, as well as men, were 

* Euseb. E. Hist., lib. i, c. 13. 



46 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

sometimes called apostles by ecclesiastical writers ; and 
that the emperor Constaritine and Helen were both fre- 
quently called, by ecclesiastical writers, laairog-oXoi, apos- 
tolic compeers .''^'^ So St. Augustine says, ^' that, generally, ^^ 
in his time, " it was applied to such as were introduced 
into the ministry." He divides apostles mio four classes, 
and says the third sort who were called apostles in his 
day, were such as were smuggled into the priesthood by 
popular favour — '-favore vulgi in sacerdtium siibrogatiT^ 
Jerome is plainer still. He makes the same division of 
apostles into four classes. In the first, he places Isaiah, 
the other prophets, and St. Paul ; in the second, Joshua 
the son of Nun ; the third he states to be, '- When any one 
is ordained by the favour and request of men. As we 
now," says he, " see many, not according to the will of 
God, but by bribing the favour of the multitude, become 
smuggled into the priesthood."^ Here it is plain from the 
testimony of these great men, earlier and better autho- 
rities than Theodoret, that, in their days, any priest, all 
priests, even the worst of priests, or presbyters, were 
COMMONLY denominated apostles. Grotius shows, that the 
emperors Honorius and Arcadius, in their laws, called the 
Jewish presbyters, apostles.*^ Tertuilian expressly calls 
the seventy disciples, apostles ;\ though Bishop Taylor 
declares that they w^ere only presbyters. Chrysostom 
and Theophylact, also, are mentioned by Estius on 1 Cor. 
XV, 7, as applying the term apostle to the seventy ; so also 
Erasmus and Calvin, on the same place. 

Such is the result of ecclesiastical authority, as to the 
appropriate name of bishops. Bishops were sometimes 
called apostles ; but 7iot bishops 07ily. " Many," says Eu- 
sebius, " were called apostles by way of imitation.''^ This 
name was not only given, by ecclesiastical writers, to the 
twelve, but to the seventy disciples ; and, says Yalesius, 
to all the disciples, companions, and assistants of the 
apostles." Augustine and Jerome prove that it was com- 
monly applied, in their day, to any priest, to all priests, 

* Sniceri Thesam., i, 477, and 1459. 

t August 0pp., torn, iv, App., p. 9, ed. Sugd., 1664. 

t Hieronymi Comment, in Epist. ad Galat., lib. i, cap i. 

^ Grotii Annot. in Poli Syn., iv, 1, 280. 

II TertuU. adversus Marcion, lib. iv, cap. 24. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSIOiN". 47 

even to the worst of priests. However, the bishops of 
that day, knowing that it did not truly belong to them, 
thought it not decent to use it, and to be called apostles ; 
they, therefore, laid it aside. Their modesty was com- 
mendable : in this our advocates do not choose to be their 
successors. 

But, if the argument from the name fails them, what was 
the fact as to the thing itself? Do ecclesiastical writers 
say that bishops were, in fact, the successors to the prero- 
gatives of the apostles ? There is no doubt that they soon 
began to write in an inflated style about bishops. Their 
opinions are worth no more than their reasons for those 
opinions are worth ; their opinions can decide nothing 
without, or against, the Scriptures. We have seen that, 
in fact, bishops possess no Scriptural claim to the preroga- 
tives of the twelve apostles. But do ecclesiastical writers 
really say that bishops possessed these prerogatives ? Do 
they say that bishops have immediate inspiration of what 
they teach ? that they are infallible ? that they have un- 
limited authority ? or that they have the prerogative of 
communicating the power to work miracles ? Speak, ye 
lofty succession men ! Ye are silent ! you dare not say 
that they do ! I dare say that they do not. Prove me mis- 
taken. Nay, so far from bishops being said to be the 
exclusive successors of the apostles in any thing, the 
greatest ranter in antiquity for bishops, viz., Ignatius, or 
rather the corrupter of his epistles, plainly says, that 
"presbyters preside in the place of the council of the 
apostles." "Be ye subject to your preshyters as to the 
apostles of Jesus Christ." " Let all reverence the preshy- 
ters as the sanhedrim of God, and as the college of 
APOSTLES." "See that ye follow the preshyters as the 
apostles.''^ 

Do ecclesiastical writers say, that anciently bishops 
governed the church as bishops now govern it ? They say 
that the government of the church was in common, that is, 
hy the common council of the preshyters, the first presbyter^ 
being for distinction's sake, and for the sake of order,t 
called bishop. Even Ignatius calls this council of the 
presbyters " the sanhedrim of God — the council of the 

* Ambrosii Oom. in Ephes. iv. 
t Hieronymi Com. in Tit., cap. i. 



48 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

apostles — the college of the apostles."* And Cyprian, next 
to Ignatius as to high notions about bishops, declares that 
he did " nothing without the council of presbyters ; that 
the mutual honour of each required him to act in this 
manner."! But do bishops now govern the church so ? 
No such thing. At the conference, at Worcester House, 
about the king's (Charles II.) declaration, when ministers 
desired that the bishops should exercise their church 
power with the counsel and consent of presbyters, Bishop 
Cosins (one of the most learned bishops in the canons, 
councils, and fathers) presently replied, " If your majesty 
grants this, you will unbishop yoitr bishops. ^^f 

Do the early fathers say that bishops had, by divine 
right, the sole power and authority of ordaining to the 
ministry? Never! Ignatius says, that presbyters were 
not even to baptize, nor do any thing, without the bishops. 
This no more proves that they could not ordain than they 
could not baptize. But the fathers give us the reason of 
this restriction upon presbyters, viz., that it was for the 
HONOUR of the bishop, for the peace of the church, and to 
prevent divisions : so say Tertullian, Jerome, and Augus- 
tine. All this proves their opinion of a divine right for good 
order, and peace in the church, and that such an arrange- 
ment was the best way of securing these ends ; and it 
proves nothing more. All deduced from it besides is mere 
sophistry and chicanery. But the matter of ecclesiastical 
authority will be discussed more at large in the following 
sections. 

The result, then, of this investigation of the apostleship 
of bishops, is, 1st. That the greatest champions of high 
Church episcopacy are divided among themselves upon it ; 
2d. That the scheme necessarily concedes that Scripture 
bishops and presbyters were one and the sa7ne order; 
3d. That every prerogative which the twelve apostles had, 
as distinguished from Scripture presbyters, was temporary 
and extraordinary, and that bishops inherit none of them ; 
4th. That as to the name of apostle, as appropriate to the 

* Ignat. Ep. ad Mag. et ad Trail. 

t Cyprian Op. Ep. 6, ed. Pamel. 

% Calamy's Abridgment of Bapter's Life and Times, vol. i, p. 171, 
Lond., 1702, 12mo. ; and see decisive evidence on the same point in 
Abp. Usher's Reduction of Episcopacy. 



I ^ ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 49 

twelve, the claim of bishops to it is absurd, as it could not 
be appropriate to the twelve, and yet common to others ; 
5th. That, as used in a larger sense, all 'preachers of the 
gospel had it alike, in the apostles' days : and after those 
-days also. So that neither in the name^ nor in the things 
is one single prerogative found, to which bishops have any 
exclusive claim. Presbyters, therefore, are as much apos- 
tles as bishops are ; and, by the word of God, as the re- 
formers declare, they are one and the same ofice and order: 
all distinctions between them are of human origin ; and 
consequently have no more than human authority. 

Finally, then, Ave conclude with Dodwell, that " the 
office of the apostles perished with the apostles ; in which 
office there never was any succession to any of them, except 
to Judas the traitor :" — with the learned Dr. Barrow, 
we conclude, " The apostolical office, as such, was per- 
sonall and temporary ; and therefore, according to its nature 
and designe, not successive or communicable to others in 
perpetuall descendence from them. It was, as such, in 
all respects extraordinary, conferred in a speciall man- 
ner, designed for speciall purposes, discharged by speciall 
aids, endowed with speciall privileges, as was needfull for 
the propagation of Christianity, and founding of churches."* 
With Whitaker, the celebrated Protestant champion, that 
" Munus episcopi nihil est ad munus apostolicum — that the 
office of a bishop has nothing to do with the office of an 
apostle "\ And thus, being fortified by Protestant autho- 
rities, we concur with Bellarmine, the great Popish con- 
troversialist, that '^Episcopi nullam habent partem verm 
apostolic(E auctoritas — Bishops have no part of the 
true apostolical authority."! 

The early bishops were, indeed, frequently called apos- 
tles by ecclesiastical writers, because they then were the 
chief in preaching the gospel, and converting the heathen 
to God. This is what our missionaries now do. They 
aj^e the modern apostles of Christianity. Xavier, who never 
was a bishop, was the apostle of Japan. But when do 

* Dr. Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, Sup. iii, p. 113, ed. Lond., 
1680, 4to. 

t Whitaker, de Pontif., Quest, iii, cap. 3, 69, ut citatur in Alt. Da- 
masc, p. 104. 

X Bellarm. de Romano Pont., lib. iv, cap. 25. 



50 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

our modern bishops undertake this labour ? At the time 
of the Reformation, Latimer lashes them for their entire 
neglect of preaching. Stimulated by the zeal of other 
churches, a few persons have gone out from the Church 
of England as bishops among the heathen, as the bishop 
of Calcutta, &c. Let them have their due praise. The 
writer honours such men as the present bishop of Calcutta. 
However, they are not strictly apostolical bishops : they 
generally go where the laborious missionary has first 
laid the foundation. There perhaps has not been a 
single instance, for the last thousand years, of a bishop 
deserving the title of apostolical bishop, by going to preach 
Christ where he was not named. Away, then, with all 
this parade about apostolical bishops ! 

§ 3. — High Priesthood of Bishops. 

Another argument is attempted to be deduced from the 
HIGH PRIESTHOOD amoug the Jews. The very learned 
Henry Dodwell, in his ^' One Altar," lays great stress upon 
this argument. See also Bishop Beveridge, Cod. Can. 
Ecc. Prim. Yindicat., lib. ii, cap. 11, sec. 9. It is a matter 
of regret to find such excellent men, forced, by a false 
system, to such unsuitable arguments. They assume, as 
indisputable, that the high priest among the Jews was of a 
different order from that of the other priests. This is more 
easily asserted than proved. The Scriptures speak of the 
whole priesthood, including equally the high priest and all 
the other priests, as one order. Num. xviii, 1 ; Heb. vii, 
11, 12, "And the Lord said unto Aaron, Thou and thy 
sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the ini- 
quity of the sanctuary : and thou and thy sons with thee 
shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood." — " If there- 
fore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under 
it the people received the law.) what further need was 
there that another priest should rise after the order o§ 
Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of 
necessity a change also of the law." Bishop Beveridge 
himself asserts, that even " Aaron is never, in the books of 
Moses, styled any thing more than simply the priest. In 
these books, neither Aaron, nor Eleazar who succeeded 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 51 

him in the high priest's office, is ever any otherwise deno- 
minated than by the term priest, as common with him and 
all the other priests. Nor, through the whole Pentateuch, 
except in two or three places where the latei^ administra- 
tion of the Jewish church is mentioned, is the title " high" 
priest used ; though the mention of his office in superin 
tending the other priests is constantly occurring."* But 
still this title is not, in the Scriptures, given exclusively to 
one, the first or head priest ; " for," says Godwyn, " when 
King David distributed the whole company of them into 
twenty-four ranks or courses, the chief of every rank was 
called Summus Sacerdos istius classis — the chief priest of 
that rank. Hence it is, that we read of many high priests 
assembled together, Mark xiv, l."t That there was not 
any essentiul difference between the office of the high 
priest, usually so called, and the office of the other priests, 
is demonstrated from this, that in the case of the high 
priest's pollution, another of the priests performed his office, 
and was called Sagan, the high priest's vicar or deputy .| 
The question, indeed, is of no real importance to our argu- 
ment ; for the Aaronical priesthood has ceased for ever : and 
" the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity 
a change of the law,'^ Heb. vii, 12. Nevertheless, the as- 
sumption, so common with high Churchmen, that there 
were really two inco7npatihle orders of priests under the 
law, is, I believe, as utterly false, as the reasoning from it 
to the subject of the Christian ministry is utterly irrelevant. 
The simple and true answer, however, to all they can draw 
from the high priest's office, is, that we have, as Chris- 
tians, one, and only one High Priest, the Lord Jesus 
Christ. To attempt more than this runs direct into the 
popedom. Indeed, this assumption of bishops being high 
priests is not the oniy case in which may be clearly seen 
the tendency of high Church principles to go direct into 
Popery. The whole system of high Church episcopacy is 
supported by arguments so similar to those used to support 
Popery, that the celebrated Treatise of Dr. Barrow against 
the Supremacy of the Pope might, in great part, by a 
change of persons, the bishops for the pope, be applied 

* Codex Can. Ecc. Prim. Vind., &c., p. 316, ed. Lond., 1678, 4to. 
t Godwyn's Moses and Aaron, b. i, c. 5. 
t See Godwyn^ as just quoted. 



52 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

with equal effect to the destruction of the one as of the 
other. A few passages will be found in this Essay, ex- 
tracted from that unanswerable work, exemplifying the 
truth of this remark. When will Protestant bishops, and 
high-flying divines, lay aside these foolish, judaizing. 
Popish reasonings ? The continental reformers spake 
strongly against these things ; and they were afraid that 
the quantity of " empty and Popish ceremonies," as they 
termed them, left in the English Church, would degene- 
rate into something of this kind. The Letters of Calvin, 
Martyr, and Zanchy show this. That sainted youth. King 
Edward VI., thus speaks on this point: "Moreover the 
Papists say, that as under the old law there was a high 
priest, or archbishop, of the Jews, so there ought now to 
be a HEAD, or supreme minister, among the Christians. 
To which I answer, that the priesthood of Aaron and 
Moses represented the supremacy of our Saviour Christ, 
and not the pope." See his Treatise against the Su- 
premacy of the Pope. This, with other evidence to be 
adduced in the following parts of this Essay, will show 
that this succession scheme does not properly belong to 
the English Church, as established at the Reformation, 
but that it is a corruption of later date. 

^ 4. — The Case of Timothy and Titus pleaded to defend 
High Church Episcopacy, 

Again, the case of Timothy and Titus is brought for- 
ward to support this scheme. "As I besought thee to 
abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that 
thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doc- 
trine," 1 Tim. i, 3. "Wherefore I put thee in remem- 
brance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, 
by the putting on of my hands," 2 Tim. i, 6. " For this 
CAUSE I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order 
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee," Titus iv, 5. These are the 
principal passages on which the stress is laid. From 
these passages an attempt is made to prove that Timothy 
and Titus were made bishops in the modern sense of these 
terms ; the one, of Ephesus, and the other of Crete ; that 
they had the government of ministers as well as of the 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 53 

people ; and that, as such, they "had the sole power of 
ordaining other ministers. The reader must be struck 
with the shifting, protean character of this scheme. We 
have just seen an attempt to make modern bishops to be 
properly apostles; and the authorities they use say, "that 
those who are now called bishops, were called apostles, 
and that anciently bishops and presbyters were the same 
PERSONS ;" that is, that modern bishops and ancient bish- 
ops are not the same. And Dr. Bentley is positive that 
their scheme makes modern bishops not " succeed the 
Scripture bishops, but the Scripture apostles ;" and that 
presbyters, therefore, while the apostles lived, were 
'EmoKOTrot,^^ bishops. But here, in the case of Timothy 
and Titus, we find the ground is changed, and an attempt 
is made to claim superiority for modern bishops from Timo- 
thy and Titus, as ancient bishops. The reason of this 
shifting character is plain enough — its ablest advocates 
find no foundation sufficient and firm beneath them. A 
sure sign of a weak cause ! 

In the first place, we may remark, that all the advocates 
for making modern bishops to be successors of the twelve 
apostles, and not of Scripture bishops, must give up all ar- 
guments from the case of Timothy and Titus in favour of 
their scheme : see pages 33 and 41 of this Essay, where 
this point is more largely brought out. This silences 
Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hook, the Oxford Tract-men and all 
such writers and their followers, as to Timothy and Titus. 

Secondly. Whatever they were, their special duties, as 
above signified, cannot be brought in as an unalterable rule 
for a standing order of men, with the same powers and 
authority ; (1.) Because there is no intimation of any such 
thing in the text ; (2.) Because they had the direct or im- 
mediate authority of the apostles for what they did, which 
none others can plead ; (3.) Because some steps might be 
necessary in places where a ministry had never existed 
among a newly-gathered people, which are not necessary 
after the establishment of a church and its ministry ; 
(4.) However, the truth is, that Timothy and Titus did 
nothing, and were commanded to do nothing, but what 
a superintendent in the Lutheran church, a senior or 
moderator in the French church, &c., would have con- 
sistently performed in similar circumstances ; and yet this 



54 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

would be no proof that such a superintendent was, by di- 
vine right, possessed of powers and authority incompatible 
with the other presbyters of that church ; for all these 
churches solemnly maintain equality, by divine right, 
among all gospel ministers. The following extract from 
the " London Cases," that is, discourses written by a 
number of bishops and divines of the Church of England 
against Dissent, will establish what I say. " Pass we 
next," says the writer, " to the reformed churches of Ger- 
many, which are in effect governed by bishops, whom they 
call superintendents. Their office is described in the Har- 
mony of Confessions, p. 227, to visit parochial ministers, 
to preside in synods, to examine and ordain persons fit for 
the ministry, &c. And when in the Book of Policy 
(A. D. 1581) for the Kingdom of Scotland, the office of 
superintendents is described, it is in these words : Imprimis, 
the superintendent of Orkney his diocess shall be the Isles 
of Orkney, &c. 

'' The superintendent of Rosse, &c. 

" The superintendent of Edenbrough, &;c. 

" The superintendent of Glascow, &c. 

'' In all ten superintendents for that kingdom. 

" Then follows the function and power of the superinten- 
dent — He shall plant and erect churches, order, (that is, 
ORDAIN,) and appoint ministers, visit, &c."* 

Now what did Timothy or Titus do more than these su- 
perintendents ? Nothing. Yet in these churches, while 
such methods were adopted for peace and order, no lordly 
and exclusive claims, by divine right, were set up for 
one minister against another ; no principle maintained 
declaring all ordinances vain, if other ministers than 
these superintendents had, by the consent of the church, 
ordained, &c. 

But, thirdly, Timothy and Titus are never called bishops 
in the Scriptures. The subscriptions at the end of the 
Epistles are of 7io authority ; but only mere human tradi- 
tion. And even were it proved that they were called 
bishops, as the word was then used, it would not follow 
that they were bishops in the sense of our modern high 
Churchmen. It will L)e seen, as we proceed, that bishops 

* London Cases, vol. i, Judgment of the Foreign Reformed Churches, 
&c., pp. 45, 46, 4to., 1690. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 55 

and presbyters, in the apostles' time, were identical. To 
prove their point, therefore, our succession men have not 
only to prove that they were called bishops, but they must 
also prove them, as bishops, to have had power, &c., in- 
compatible icith presbyters^ as presbyters. Now, as to 
Timothy, he is called an evangelist : " But watch thou in 
all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangel- 
ist, make full proof of thy ministry," 2 Tim. iv, 5. The 
first evangelists, like the first apostles, had superior gifts, 
as is evident from Eph. iv, 11, and modern bishops can 
no more claim this office than any other minister. As to 
the argument from tradition, for their being bishops, we 
shall see what that is worth by and by. 

Fourthly. Timothy had, most evidently, presoyterian or- 
dination ; and, therefore, according to such men, could be 
nothing more than a presbyter : " Neglect not the gift 
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with 
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," 1 Tim. 
iv, 14. The episcopal succession divines strive hard to 
avoid this, and to give apostolical ordination, by pleading 
2 Tim. i, 6, " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that 
thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the put- 
ting on of my TiandsT To understand this passage, the 
reader should keep in mind that the conferring of the Holy 
Ghost, as to miraculous poioers, belonged peculiarly to 
the apostles, as a proof of their apostlesJiip. To see this, 
read attentively the following passages : — " Now when the 
apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had 
received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and 
John ; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, 
that they might receive the Holy Ghost ; for as yet he was 
fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the 
name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on 
them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon 
SAW that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy 
Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying. Give 
me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he 
may receive the Holy Ghost." Acts viii, 14-19. "And 
when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost 
came on them ; and they spake with tongues, and pro- 
phesied," Acts xix, 6. Here it is evident, that the gift 
peculiarly attending the laying on of the apostle's hands, 



56 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

was the gift of the Holy Ghost, in miraculous power. The 
apostle, therefore, laid his hands on Timothy, that he might 
be blessed with some of those miraculous gifts. This 
was a distinct matter from Timothy's ordination, which was 
performed by the laying on of the hands of the presbyters. 
This is the true interpretation of these passages. Timo- 
thy's ordination, therefore, was properly presbyterian. 

But suppose we grant to these divines, that the apostle 
joined with the preshytery in Timothy's ordination ; what 
then ? O ! it would be apostolical ordination ! and bish- 
ops being infolded in the apostles, it would be episcopal 
ordination; ergo, Timothy was a bishop. If the argu- 
ment were worth any thing, it would prove that he was 
ordained an apostle : but it has no foundation. The apos- 
tle Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters in every city : 
but they are never said to have ordained bishops. I 
doubt not but high Churchmen think that it was very un- 
fortunate that St. Paul was not as careful about episcopacy 
as they are. They would have taught him how to write 
better. He should have written, that Timothy was or- 
dained a bishop by the hands of the apostles. But he 
wrote by the hands of the presbytery. Sad stroke to 
high Churchmen ! Now whatever hands might be employed, 
the denomination of a thing is always taken from that which 
was designed to be the chief cause or instrument in the act. 
This is a universal rule. The hands of the preshytery are 
spoken of by the Holy Spirit as the chief instrumental 
cause in Timothy's ordination ; therefore the ordination of 
Timothy was properly a preshyterian ordination. Bishop 
Taylor thinks it is necessary for those who believe that 
this was presbyterian ordination, to prove that the preshy- 
tery was NOT a company of bishops.* What work such 
surmises make of sacred writ ! As though the apostle said 
one thing and meant another. " The presbytery that im- 
posed hands on Timothy, is, by all antiquity, expounded 
either of the ojffice^^ or of a college of preshyters^'^ says he 

■^ Episcopacy Asserted, p. 191. 

t Mr. Sinclair, in his " Vindication of the Episcopal or Apostolical 
Succession," at page 23, Lond., 12mo., 1839, ventures to assert, that 
*' the learned Calvin affirms, that the word presbytery does not^ in this 
passage, refer to any college or assembly of presbyters, as conferring 
the gift on Timothy ; but to the gift itself, namely, the function of a 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 57 

himself, in the very same page ; and yet we are to prove 
that these were not properly presbyters, before we can 
prove that this was properly a preshyterian ordination ! 
That they might be bishops, in a Scriptural sense, we all 
admit ; because bishops and presbyters are, in the Scrip- 
tures, identical ; but to contend that they might be bishops, 
in the sense in which these men now use the word, would 
reflect on the apostle in a manner one would not wish to 
describe. Yet so does bigotry blind the mind, that these 
eminent men make statements awfully disparaging to the 
very word of God itself, I charge them not with the 
intention of doing this ; but I charge their arguments with 
the consequence. Let him clear them that can. 

Fifthly, to argue, that because the apostle says he he- 
sought Timothy to abide at Ephesus, therefore it must 
mean he was bishop of that place, is so puerile as to be 
almost below notice. If he had besought Timothy to 
make a temporary departure from Ephesus, this would 
have implied something like a residence there. But to be- 
seech a young man, who was generally travelling with the 
apostle, to abide still in some particular place, y^?/* a special 
purpose there named, " to charge some that they teach 
no other doctrine" — and not a word about his bishopric 
or residence being dropped, is all so void of proof of his 
being bishop of Ephesus, that able men must be driven to 
severe shifts before they take up with such arguments to 
support so important a cause. Accordingly, the learned 
Daille observes, " Who, without the assistance of an ex- 
presbyter, which Timothy received." Now, first, this is partly true 
and partly false. In his Institutes he gives the above opinion, but in his 
notes on the place, he delivers a different judgment. Calvin's words, 
in his commentary on 1 Tim. iv, 14, are, " Preshyterium — qui hie col- 
lectivum nomen esse putant pro collegio Presbyterorum positum, recte 
sentiunt meo judicio : that is, they who understand the word presbytery, 
in this place, to be a collective noun, put to signify the college of pres- 
byters, are, in my judgment, right in their interpretation." 

Secondly, Mr. Sinclair's interpretation makes nonsense of the pas- 
sage. It would make the apostle say, that the gift was conferred upon 
Timothy by the laying on of the hands of the gift ! ! 

Thirdly, it grants, after all, that the function or office to which Timo- 
thy was ordained, was "the function of a presbyter." 

So, in spite of fate, and of Mr. Sinclair too, Timothy's ordination was 
a preshyterian ordination, and Timothy was ordained, not to the func- 
tion of a bishop, but to the function of a presbyter ! 

3* 



58 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

traordinary passion, could ever have divined a thing so 
fine and rare, or have imagined, that to beseech a man to 
abide in a city, impHed the settling him the bishop of it, 
archbishop of the province, and primate of all the country? 
Without exaggerating, the cause of our hierarchial gentle- 
men must needs run very low, that they should be forced 
to have recourse to such pitiful proof. For my part," 
says he, " vieAving things without passion, from the apos- 
tle's saying that he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus, 
I shall rather conclude on the contrary, that he could not 
be the bishop of that place. For to what purpose is to 
beseech a bishop to abide in his diocess ? Is not that begging 
a man to abide in a place where is bound to abide ? I 
should not," says he, '' think it strange at all, that he 
should need to be besought to go from thence, if his ser- 
vice was elsewhere needful. But to beseech him to stay 
in a place where he is fixed by his charge, and which he 
could not quit without offending God, and failing in his 
duty : to speak the truth, this is a request that is not very 
obliging ; for it evidently presupposes that a man does not 
lay his duty much to heart, when he needs to be entreated 
to do it. But however 'tis as to that, it is very certain, 
that beseeching a man to abide in a place, does not signify 
the making him bishop of the place. If that had been the 
apostle's thought, without doubt he would have expressed 
it ; he would have plainly settled Timothy bishop of Ephe- 
sus, and left him there to exercise that charge." Dodwell 
declares, that neither Timothy nor Titus was resident at 
all anywhere, but were " itinerants^'' and companions of 
the apostles in planting and settling churches.^ A*nd such 
seems really to have been the case. 

Sixthly, in Paul's final adieu to the presbyters of Ephe- 
sus, Acts XX, there also called bishops, there is not a word 
about Timothy either having been, or being designed to be, 
placed as bishop in that city. 

The case of Titus is so similar to that of Timothy, that 
if Timothy's will not support this scheme, they can have 
no hope in that of Titus ; and the above observations 
apply so sufficiently to both, that we shall not repeat them. 
There is not a single point in either of them, in proof of 

* See Dodwell De Nupero Schism., sec. 10 ; also a Discourse oa 
Episcopacy, by Dr. John Edwards, chap. 9. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 59 

the succession scheme, that would be depended upon by 
any persons who were not resolved, at all hazards, to say 
something to support a sinking cause. Perhaps we should 
not omit to notice, that the very Epi«tle to Titus shows 
plainly the identity of bishops and presbyters : " For this 
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order 
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [preshyters^^ 
in every city, as I had appointed thee : — For a hishop must 
be blameless," &c., Titus i, 5-7 — phraseology this, which 
clearly shows that presbyter and bishop in St. Paul's 
thoughts and language were one and the same. This 
single passage is enough to silence for ever all attempts to 
make Titus a prop for this doctrine of the order of bishops, 
by divine right, being superior to presbyters ; for it evi- 
dently speaks of them as being one and the same office. 
The parallel place in 1 Tim. iii, 1-7, does, on all just 
principles of exposition, come under the same interpreta- 
tion, and implies that the apostle taught both these distin- 
guished men of God the same doctrine of the identity of 
bishops and presbyters ; and, therefore, neither of them, in 
their personal history, can be quoted as proofs of the 
contrary opinion. 

§ 5.— The Angels of the Seven Churches 

The only remaining argument, of vv^hich I am aware, is 
from the mention of the angels of the churches in the Reve- 
lation of St. John. This is thought to imply, that some 
one person had the power and authority of a modern high 
Church bishops in each of the then Asiatic churches. This 
is, the most like a case in point of any thing advanced in 
favour of this scheme. But, that it cannot be held as a 
good argument, the following remarks will show : — 

1. It is a supreme rule of interpretation, that what is oh- 
scure must be interpreted by what is clear. Now it must 
clearly appear to an unbiased mind, from Acts xx, 17-20, 
that the church of Ephesus was governed by a number 
OF PRESBYTERS, identical with bishops. In this solemn 
charge, and final farewell of the apostle, while reviewijig 
the PAST, and looking into the future, and giving, under 
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the best advice for the 
continual welfare of the church, there is not a syllable 



60 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

about placing one individual over the other ministers like 
a modern bishop, to govern the rest. " There is no one 
presbytery, of which the apostle took such a solemn care, 
as he did of this ; and there is no doubt, if it had been the 
mind of God that a single person should be set over them, 
but the apostle would have mentioned it at this time. He 
tells them in his charge to them, that he ' shunned not to 
declare to them the whole counsel of God,' Acts xx, 27 ; 
and immediately adds, verse 28, that the Holy Ghost made 
them bishops of that flock : this, therefore, is part of the 
counsel of God, that the church (should) be governed by 
the elders in purity, (by the presbyters in common.) If 
the superiority of bishops had been any part of the counsel 
of God, the apostle would not have withheld it from the 
presbyters at Ephesus at this time. They that affirm that 
the government of this church was afterward changed, 
must bring as clear proof for it, as we do for this establish- 
ment."* These writers will have it that Timothy was 
sole bishop, as the angel of the church at Ephesus : had 
the excellent Timothy so fallen, as is described Rev. ii, 
4, 5 ? This is hard to believe. But that what the apos- 
tle predicted, Acts xx, 29, had partly taken place, is not 
iijipossible, nor very improbable. 

2. The book of Revelation is a deei^ly mysterious book. 
Several divines of note interpret the whole matter in a 
mystical sense, as a representation of any church or 
churches in a similar state to each case there described, to 
the end of the world. See Cocceius, the very learned 
Mede, Dr. H. More, and Forbesius, in Pool's Synopsis. 
Pool himself seems to think that many things confirm this 
interpretation. Among others are mentioned, from More 
and Mede, that there w^ere many other churches more 
celebrated at that time than these seven mentioned, and 
which equally needed admonition and encouragements. 
These seven, therefore, are made the mystical representa- 
tives of the whole. t 

3. The term angel is here most probably to be taken in 
a COLLECTIVE scusc, as the term beast in the thirteenth 
chapter. A similar mode of speaking is not uncommon in 

* James Owen's Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 101, 12mo. ed., 1677. 
t See Calderwood's Altare Damascenum, p. 99, for iliastration on 
this point. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 61 

the sacred Scriptures ; for instance, by the two witnesses, 
Rev. xi, 3, nobody understands two precisely, but a num- 
her of witnesses ; and the angel mentioned, Rev. xiv, 6, 
&c., having the everlasting gospel to preach, evidently 
means all the faithful ministers of God's word in general, 
as then going forth to preach the everlasting gospel with 
more than ordinary zeal and success. And compare Dan. 
viii, 3, 20, where a ram signifies the kings of Media and 
Persia. Again, in Daniel, chap, vii, the same idiom is used. 
The four beasts are four kings, ver. 17. The fourth beast 
is the fourth kingdom, ver. 27. Now this implied the 
Roman power. But this power, for some hundreds of 
years, was a republic, governed not by one person, but by 
a number of senators. Yet these are spoken of as one 
beast — one king. Every person has observed that the 
Revelation follows the idiom of the prophecy of Daniel. 
This is the case here in using the term angel, that is, 
messenger or minister, collectively for a number of 
ministers, as Daniel uses the term beast, or king, for a 
number of governors possessing equal power at the same 
time. And what further confirms this interpretation, is, 
that the angel of the church of Smyrna is addressed in the 
j^lural, chap, ii, 10 ; and the angel of the church of Thya- 
tira likewise is addressed in the plural, ver. 24, " Unto the 
angel of the church of Thyatira write — unto you I say," 
Slc. Durham well reasons, that as there were, undoubt- 
edly, ma7ii/ ministers in each of these churches, they must 
be spoken of either under the similitude of the candlesticks, 
that is, the people ; or under that of stars, that is, the angels 
or ministers. The first is absurd : it follows, therefore, 
that the angel, the star, of each church, means the ministers 
of that church collectively. This I think is the true sense 
of the place. 

Some modern commentators who decidedly believe the 
identity, as to order, of bishops and presbyters, still think 
that in the Revelation of St. John, the angel means that* 

* Suppose the term angel to mean some one minister presiding over 
the other ministers. In the first place, this only proves the fact ; but 
gives no laiPhinding all churches to such presidency. And, secondly, 
the question remams, was this president a presbyter or bishop 1 Ad- 
mitting the fact, for the sake of argument, the chief evidence of that 
time will prove that this president was a presbyter. Presbyters are 
said to ordain, but never bishops. 1 Tim. iv, 14. Apostles are called 



62 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

presiding elder or presbyter, afterward called bishop, by 
way of eminence, as prhnus inter pares ^ the first among 
his equals. However, though this would not alter the 
state of the question at issue, I still think this opinion 

presbyters, but never bishops ; presbyters are said to join in council 
with the apostles, but never bishops. Acts xv. St. John, in this very 
Dook, frequently speaks of presbyters or elders, but he never once 
mentions bishops. Justin Martyr and TertuUian speak of the presi- 
dents in the churches in their days as presbyters. So the judicious 
Hooker : " John beheld sitting about the throne of God in heaven four 
and twenty presbyters, the one-half, fathers of the Old, the others, 
of the New Jerusalem. In which respect the apostles likewise gave 
themselves the same title, albeit that name were not proper, but common 
unto them with others. For of presbyters, some were greater, some 
less in power, and that by our Saviour's own appointment ; the greater^ 
they which iece,Y\^edi fulness of spiritual power ; the less, they to whom 
less w^as granted. The apostles' peculiar charge was to publish the 
gospel of Christ to all nations, and to deliver them his ordinances re- 
ceived by immediate revelation from himself. Which pre-eminence 
excepted, to ALL Other offices and duties incident into their order, it 
was in them to ordain and consecrate whomsoever they thought meet, 
EVEN AS our Saviour did himself seventy others of his own disciples 
inferior presbyters^ whose commission to preach and baptize was the 
same which the apostles had." {Ecc. Polity, book v, sec. 77.) Dr. 
Rainolds, an illustrious defender of Protestantism, thus interprets the 
passage in his Conference with Hart : " Presbyters were constituted 
bishops by the Holy Ghost, that they m.ight superintend and feed the 
flock : and that this might be more effectually accomplished by their 
united counsel and consent, they were accustomed to meet together in 
one company ; and to elect one as president of the assembly and mode- 
rator of the proceedings : whom Christ, in the Revelation, denominates 
the angel of the church, and to whom he writes those things which he 
meant him to signify to the others. And this is the person to whom 
the fathers afterward in the primitive church denominated the bishop."* 
Now this is all perfectly consistent with the constitution of those 
Christian churches where no high Church episcopacy is found. The 
superintendents in the Lutheran church, and among the Wesleyan 
Methodists, have every whit as much authority as is here supposed : 
yet all this exists in fact and practice w^here all the ministers, by divine 
right, are equal. Many Protestant writerst grant that Peter had some 
sort of priority among the apostles ; and many of the fathers speak of 
the same ; the Papists, therefore, argue that the pope, as Peter's suc- 
cessor, has universal lordship over all ministers and churches. Their 
argument is quite as well sustained from Scripture, as the argument of 
high Churchmen is for the lordship of bishops. Dr. Barrow grants that 
Peter might have such a primacy '• as the primipilar centurion had in 
the Legion, or the prince of the senate had there, in the Roman state ; 
at least, as among earls, baronets, &c., and others, co-ordinate in de- 

* Rainolds's Conference, cap. iv, in Alt. Dam., p. 47. 

t Barrow on the Supremac)^ supr. ii, ScC. v and vi, p. 104, 4to., ed. 1080. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 63 

extremely improbable, because the loJwle drift of the New 
Testament, as we shall soon see, gives a more perfect 
equality to the ordinary ministers of the church, than this 
hypothesis would require. It appears to me, therefore, 
extremely illogical, in a matter so plain, to infer the con- 
trary from a single passage, in a very obscure and mystical 
book ; and that, while the passage itself is fairly capable 
of an interpretation in perfect accordance with the rest of 
the New Testament, as is shown in the third observation. 
At any rate, no valid argument can be drawn from so dis- 
putable a passage in favour of modern episcopacy. 

To conclude this section : — Then it appears that there 
is NO POSITIVE evidence from the sacred Scriptures for 
these high Church claims for bishops as apostles, with 
authority and powers, by divine right, superior to, and 
incompatible with presbyters : there is nothing about a per- 
sonal succession ; about the ordination of ministers, &c., 
belonging exclusively to such apostles, by voluntary 
humility called bishops. There is nothing in our Lord's 
commission, not a word : the plea of being really apostles, 
is unsupported by the New Testament, and is contradicted 
by the fathers themselves ; and it is, moreover, arrogant, 
unsustained by their conduct, and consequently ridiculous ; 
the case of Timothy and Titus fails to support them, and 
the epistles to both contradict their scheme ; the angels 
of the Apocalypse also fail them ; the whole system, as to 
Scriptural authority, is built on a sandy foundation, 
and is buttressed up by violent assumptions, strained or 
false analogies, forced interpretations, and, ultimately, 
comes to be placed, by concessions of their own, upon mere 
human and ecclesiastical authority. This is its proper 
basis. In this view of the case, they have a perfect right, 
if they think it the best, to adopt it, to advocate, and to 
recommend it to others. We fully concede this right. 
This is the view the reformers of the English Church took, 
as we shall see in the sequel. 

gree, yet one hath a jjrecedence of the rest."* Yet he maintains the 
power of the apostles was equal ; their rights and authority, as apostles, 
the same. Hence, suppose such a primacy of one presbyter as presi- 
dent over the rest, and that such were the angels of the churches in 
the Revelation, yet the power of all the presbyters would, notwith- 
standing this, be equal ; their rights and authority the same. 

* Barrow on the Supremacy, supp. ii, sec. v and vi, p. 49, 4to., ed. 1080. 



64 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

But, then, to claim a diviiie right for this system, and 
for this EXCLUSIVELY of all others ; and that so as to de- 
clare that no ministry^ except ordained by these modern 
apostles, is valid ; that all the ordinances of all the Pro- 
testant churches in Europe besides the Church of England 
are vain, and loithout the promise of Christ : this, we say, 
is such a piece of blind and bigoted arrogance, as to de- 
serve severe exposure and rebuke. It is designed to pro- 
mote a spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance : may such 
designs perish for ever ! and may all ministers learn that 
they are brethren ; and that all v^ho love the Lord Jesus 
Christ in sincerity, are one holy, catholic, and apos- 
tolical CHURCH, built, not upon the traditions of men, but 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. 



SECTION IV. 

THE GENERAL SPIRIT AND SCOPE OF THE GOSPEL OPPOSED 
TO THIS HIGH CHURCH SCHEME. 

" True it is," says the judicious Hooker, " concerning 
the word of God, whether it be by misconstruction of the 
sense, or by falsification of the words, wittingly to en- 
devor that* any thing may seem divine which is not, or 
any thing not seem which is, were plainly to abuse and 
even to falsifie divine evidence, which injurie offered but 
unto men is most worthily counted hainous. Which point 
I wish they did well observe, with whom nothing is more 
familiar than to plead in these causes, the law of God, the 
word of the Lord ; who, notwithstanding when they come 
to alleage what word and what law they meant, their 
common ordinary practice is, to quote by-speeches in 
some historicall narration or other, and to urge them as 
if they were written in most exact forme of laiv. What is 
to add to the law of God if this bee not ? When that 
which the word of God doth but deliver historically, we 
conster loithout any loarrant as if it were legally meant, 
and so urge it further than wee can prove that it was in- 
tended, doe wee not adde to the lawes of God, and make 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 65 

them in number seeme more than they are ? It standeth 
us upon to be carefull in this case. For the sentence of 
God is heavy against them, that wittingly shall presume 
thus to use the Scripture."* These words of this cele- 
brated defender of the Church of England exactly de- 
scribe, and justly censure, the conduct of these high 
Church excommunicators. They pretend to plead " the 
law of God," or divine authority^ for their scheme of ex- 
communicating the other Protestant churches of Europe, 
while, " notwithstanding, when they come to alleage what 
word and what law they meant, their common ordinary 
practice is, to quote by-speeches in some historical narra- 
tion or other, and to urge them as if they were written in 
most exact form of law." So, if the subject of the alms 
of the church be historically treated, and the Greek term 
for messengers be used, (a term which was also applied 
to those extraordinary ministers, by it denominated 
apostles,) this is immediately caught at in order to create 
a second order of apostles, to whom modern bishops are to 
be the exclusive successors. Again, if St. Paul wishes 
Timothy to abide at Ephesus for a special purpose, named 
in the request, this must make him bishop of Ephesus. 
St. Luke says, in historical narration^ (Acts xxi, 17, 18,) 
" And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren re- 
ceived us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with 
us unto James ; and all the elders were present." Bishop 
Taylor makes this hy-speech, or historical narration, for- 
mally the " second evidence of Scripture," that St. James 
was bishop of Jerusalem. " Why (went they in) unto 
James ?" he asks, " why not rather into the presbytery, 
or college of elders, if James did not eminere, were not 
the Tjyovfievog, the praepositus, or bishop of them all?"f 

* Ecclesiastical Polity, b. iii, sec. 5. 

t Episcop. Ass., p. 71. And Mr. Sinclair, in his '^Vindication of 
Episcopal or x\postolical Succession," makes a mighty parade of this 
nonsensical argument, pp. 24-27. But he destroys it utterly by betray- 
ing its foolishness in the two following particulars: 1. That by it an 
apostle is elevated to be a bishop of a single city ! I 2. That con- 
sistently with this, he actually has the hardihood and infatuation to 
make James, as bishop of Jerusalem, preside over the apostles 
themselves in the council at Jerusalem. Fine work ! a bishop lording 
it over the apostles ! ! These absurdities are genuine results of the 
*rgument. He quotes, as historic evidence for it; an acknowledged 



66 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

To be sure, the weary travellers must go in somewhere ; 
but does the simple fact of their calling at a certain bro- 
ther's house, prove that he was a bishop of the place ? 
Besides, how absurd to degrade an apostle into a bishop — 
a universal commission into a local one, to a single city ! 
'^ As if the king should become mayor of London ; as il 
the bishop of London should be vicar of Pancras !"* Well, 
let us read verses 7 and 8 of this very chapter : " And 
when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to 
Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them 
one day. And the next day we that were of Paul's com- 
pany departed, and came unto Cesarea : and we entered 
into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of 
the seven, and abode with him." Here, then, we make 
Philip, the evangelist, who was one of the seven deacons, 
bishop of Cesarea. What solemn trifling is all this ! 
Nothing is more calculated to destroy the authority of 
Scripture itself than this mode of interpretation. The 
champions of Popery excel in it. They may do it con- 
sistently, because they have supreme authority to make 
the Scriptures say what they please. They often labour 
to prove the uncertainty of the meaning of the Scriptures, 
in order to increase their priestly authority. Their people 
have bound themselves to believe them, by giving up the 
right of private judgm^ent. Thus the monstrous errors of 
Popery are received, on what they call the authority of the 
church, (that is, the dicta of their priests,) as the truths of 
God's holy word. Such is the method of proof used by 
these high Church writers, quoting '' by-speeches in some 
historical narration, and urging them as if they were written 
in most exact form of law," in order to prove the divine 
right of their scheme, and that to the exclusion of all from 
the pale of the Christian church who do not conform to it. 
'' What is to add to the law of God, if this be not ? When 
that which the word of God doth but deliver historically, 
we conster without any warrant as if it were legally meant, 
and so urge it further than we can prove that it was in- 

interpolation of Ignatius ; and the work of Hegisippus, which Dupin, a 
competent authority, declares is little better than a fable. The rest 
of his authorities may be considered generally as retailers of this ori- 
ginal fable and absurd statement. 

^ Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, supp. 4. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 67 

tended, do we not adde to the laws of God, and make them 
in number seeme more than they are ? It standeth its upon 
to be careful in this case. For the sentence of God is 
heavy against them, that wittingly shall presume thus to 
use the Scripture." Such a procedure can supply no 
proofs ; it leads to much perversion of the public mind ; 
and is dangerous in its consequences to the authors them- 
selves, and to the cause of religion in the world. 

It is a point which the reader cannot too carefully mark, 
that the proof — proof clear, plain, and strong, lies upon 
these advocates to produce. In strictness, there needs 
NONE against this scheme : if their proofs fail to support 
it, it FALLS OF ITSELF. Their proofs are such as the judi- 
cious Hooker has above described. They are, in truth, 
no proofs. The system, therefore, falls by its own weight. 
This is enough to a serious, reflecting mind. Where there 
is no law there is no transgression. Nay, more, the very 
countenancing of individuals in an attempt to " make that 
seeme divine which is not, were plainly to abuse and even 
to FALSIFY DIVINE EVIDENCE, whicli injury offered but unto 
men is most worthily counted hainous." Let every per- 
son, therefore, take care how he becomes a partaker in the 
proceedings of these men. 

We shall, however, expose these high pretensions from 
the Scriptures themselves. In this section we intend to 
point out some of those simple and catholic principles laid 
down by our Lord and his apostles in the New Testament, 
in contrast to the narrow^ bigoted, exclusive, and intolerant 
character of this pseudo-succession scheme. 

One CHARACTERISTIC of tlic Ncw Covenant is, the put- 
ing aside of '• carnal ordinances," and " the traditions 
of men ;" and the placing of our holy religion upon the 
si?riplest and broadest basis ; requiring nothing as abso- 
lutely ESSENTIAL to it, but faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, 
working by love, purifying the heart, and fulfilling the law. 
Even baptism and the Lord's supper, though positively 
OBLIGATORY wlierc they can be had, are not absolutely 
essential to the possession of the blessings of the gospel. 
Abraham was justified :^efore he was circumcised. Hear 
the apostle, in Rom. iv, 9-12, " Cometh this blessedness then 
upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision 
also ? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for 



08 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was 
in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumci- 
sion, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of 
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
he had yet being uncircumcised : that he might be the 
father of all them that believe, though they be not circum- 
cised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also : 
and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the 
circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that 
faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet un- 
circumcised." Cornelius was justified before he was 
baptized : Acts x, 44-47, " While Peter yet spake these 
words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them v> hich heard the 
word. And they of the circumcision which believed were 
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on 
the Gentiles also was pom'ed out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and 
magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid 
water, that these should not be baptized, which have re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" Every one that 
believes the gospel is hound by its positive authority to be 
baptized, and to receive the Lord's supper ; but the Scrip- 
tures never declare that any man shall be damned for the 
lack of either ; but '' he that belie veth not shall be damned." 
A wilful, presumptuous neglect of these positive institu- 
tions, is inconsistent with Christian character ; but if igno- 
rance, the prejudices of education, or lack of opportunity, 
occasions any individual who believes in Christ, as above 
described, to be found without them, he may and will be 
saved. He that saith otherwise, let him learn what this 
meaneth, " I will have mercy," saith the Lord, " and not 
sacrifice," Matt, xii, 7. Even circumcision, the want of 
which was threatened from heaven with solemn excision, 
or cutting off from Israel, was relaxed when circumstances 
required it. See Joshua v, 2-9. 

The same observation bears directly upon the ministers 
of the gospel. Under the Jewish dispensation, great ritual 
exactness was enjoined in setting them apart to the service 
of the altar. The priesthood was confined to one family. 
Denunciations of death were proclaimed against any who 
approached unto God contrary to his own positive injunc- 
tions. These things v/ere all marvellously calculated to 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 69 

point out in shadow the one priesthood, and one offering 
of Christ, showing it to be the divine way unto the Father, 
and EXCLUDING ALL OTHER WAYS. But, wheu He came, 
all the ritual of the Leviticai priesthood, and all the offer- 
ings, as offerings for sins ; all the denunciations as to the 
ministry, the confining of it by carnal ordinances to one 
family, and to personal succession, for ever passed away. 
There is not a word of any of these things in the New 
Testament ; but quite the contrary. With the exception 
of baptism and the Lord's supper, there is not a single rite 
or ceremony enjoined in the whole of the New Testament, 
As to offerings, as offerings for sin, they are put away for 
ever, by the sacrifice of Christ : thus testifies the Holy 
Ghost by the apostle in Heb. x, 11-14, " And every priest 
standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same 
sacrifices, which can never take away sins : but this man, 
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat dow^n 
on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expecting till 
his enemies be made his footstool. For hy one offering he 
hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Hence 
the Popish priests, pretending in their masses to offer the 
body and blood of Christ as an offering for sin, destroy 
the PERFECTION of the atonement itself. They bring it 
down to that imperfection which belonged to the blood of 
bulls and of goats, on which the apostle thus argues, Heb. 
X, 1-4 : " For the law having a shadow of good things to 
come, and not the very image of the things, can never 
with those sacrifices which they offered year by year con- 
tinually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then 
would they not have ceased to be offered ? because that 
the worshippers once purged should have had no more 
conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a 
remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is 
not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should 
take away sins." Popery awfully corrupts Christianity 
itself by striking at its very foundation. It takes away 
Christ from Christianity, and conducts us back to 
Judaism. This is done to lay the foundation for priestly 
tyranny, that the priests, keeping the offerings for sin, and 
the power of absolution, in their own hands, may bind the 
tortured conscience to their own will, and play the direst 
tyranny over the destinies of mankind. Accursed system ! 



70 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

The blood of a host of martyrs has been shed in testimony 
against it. May Protestants never become blind to its 
blasphemy and iniquity ! As to the ministers of the gospel, 
our adorable Redeemer, and his servants the apostles, 
proceed upon the same principles as those applied to 
sacrifice and offerings for sin. As offerings for sin have 
ceased to be offered for ever, so there is no priest in the 
gospel ministry. Our Redeemer 7iever repeats his offering. 
He appears as our High Priest, in the presence of God, 
to make intercession for us ; but his act of offering himself 
for us is NEVER to be repeated. " After he had offered 
one sacrifice for sin, he for ever sat down on the right 
hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his enemies be 
made his footstool ; for by one offering he hath perfected 
for ever them that are sanctified," Heb. x, 12-14. He is 
the ONLY Priest in the New Covenant. No gospel minister 
is a priest.^ It is very remarkable, that in the constitution 
of the Christian ministry, and in the government of the 
Christian church, our Lord seems studiously to have avoided 
introducing any thing like the priesthood of Aaron, and the 
Mosaic dispensation and ritual. The conduct of Papists 
and high Churchmen is the very opposite of this. Their 
aim is to Judaize Christianity. Our Lord proceeded 
silently in many things, that the change might not become 
a stumbling to the Jews. But, while the priesthood of 
Aaron was left to perish, as being superseded by His 
priesthood who is a Priest for ever according to the order 
of Melchizedec, not after the law of a carnal command- 
ment, but after the power of an endless life, the service 
of the Jev/ish synagogue was generally followed in model- 
ling the ministry and government of the Christian church. 
See this abundantly proved and exemplified by the learned 
Vitringa, in his work on the ancient synagogue, '' De 
Synagoga Vetere.^^ It may be enough to the purpose of 

* '' In truth, the word presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety 
of speech more agreeable than priest, with the drift of the whole gospel 
of Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost, throughout the body of the New 
Testament, making so much mention of them, (presbyters,) doth not 
anywhere call them priests." — Hooker, Eccles. Polity, book v, sec. 78. 
The high Church bishops who revised the Prayer-book in the time of 
Charles II. are said to have substituted priest five or six times, where 
the reformers had simply used the word minister. The Nev/ Testament 
did not teach them this. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 71 

our present argument to remark, that no office or authority 
there was confined to personal succession, and that every 
presbyter, appointed or ordained to the government and 
service of the synagogue, had the power of ordaining 
others in his place, though the exercise of this power was, 
for the sake of order, regulated by rules formed by the 
synagogue itself. Thus speaks Maimonides, the most 
eminent of Jewish writers on such subjects : " In ancient 
times," (that is, the times before Hillel the elder, who died 
about ten years after the birth of Christ,) " every one who 
was ordained himself, ordained his scholars. But the wise 
men, in order to show particular reverence for Hillel the 
elder, made a rule that no one should be ordained without 
the permission of the president, neither should the presi- 
dent himself ordain any one without the presence of the 
father of the sanhedrim, nor the father without the pre- 
sence of the president. But, as to other members of the 
sanhedrim, any one might ordain^ (having obtained permis- 
sion of the president,) by joining with himself two others ; 
for ordination cannot regularly be performed except three 
join in the ordination."* In the apostles' days, all acts 
of importance and authority were done by gospel ministers 
(in conjunction with the apostles) under the denomination 
of elders, that is, presbyters, and seldom under the deno- 
mination of bishops. It may suffice to instance only one, 
viz., that of ORDAINING other ministers : this was done 
expressly by the assembly of presbyters, and not a word 
about bishops in the matter. 1 Tim. iv, 14. Now here is 
nothing in all these proceedings binding the church to an 
order of bishops as the sole ordainers of ministers, and 
governors of ministers and people, to be traced by an unin- 
terrupted succession of episcopal ordinations, and without 
whose ordinations no ministry, nor ordinance, nor sacra- 
ment, has the promise of Christ to the end of the world ! 
It may be Judaism, it may be Popery, but it is not Chris- 
tianity. 

But,- further, we have directions of quite a different na- 
ture and character from this scheme of succession, laid 
down as to gospel ministers by our Lord and his apostles. 
These are holiness of life, the call of God, and soundness 
of doctrine. 

* V. Selden De Syned., lib. ii, c. 7, p. 173, 4to. Amstel., 1679. 



72 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

• We say our Lord and his apostles require holiness of 
life in a gospel minister. Our Lord's requisition is, that 
he must enter the fold by himself as the door. This 
principally refers to his entering the office of the ministry. 
Now will the great Shepherd of souls himself open the 
door of the sheepfold to wolves, even though they have 
sheep's clothing ? The supposition is monstrous, and can 
never enter the mind which is imbued with just views of 
Christianity. Again, the greater always includes the less. 
The office of a minister of Christ is a greater matter than 
that of a private member of Christ's mystical body. No 
wicked man is a true member of Christ's mystical body : 
no wicked man, therefore, is a true member of Christ. A 
true minister of Christ, then, always implies that the per- 
son is first a real Christian. No man is a gospel minister 
who is not. Even deacons, an inferior office, not belong- 
ing to the gospel ministry at all, in their Scriptural institu- 
tion, are to be men ''full of faith and the Holy Ghost ;^^ 
how much more, then, ministers of the gospel ! When 
Paul speaks of the ministry of reconciliation, they who 
have received it are such as have first been reconciled 
themselves : — '' And all things are of God, who hath recon- 
ciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us 
the ministry of reconciliation," 2 Cor. v, 18. Some of tl^e 
verses of the following chapter are worthy of a place here : 
2 Cor. vi, 3-7, '' Giving no offence in any thing, that the 
ministry be not blamed : but in oil tJiings approving our- 
selves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflic- 
tions, in necessities, in distresses. In stripes, in imprison- 
ments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings ; by 
pureness^ by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by 
the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, 
by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on 
the right hand and on the left." But the matter is treated 
professedly in other places, as in Titus i, 5-9 : " For this 
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order 
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbyters] 
in every city, as I had appointed thee : if any be blame- 
less, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, 
not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be 
blameless, as the steward of God ; not self-willed, not soon 
angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 73 

lucre ; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, 
SOBER, JUST, HOLY, temperate ; holding fast the faithful 
word as he hath been taught, that he maybe able by sound 
doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." 

Again, every true minister of the gospel must have the 
call of God. This cannot be better expressed than in the 
language of the ordination service of the Church of Eng- 
land, which requires that every man coming to be ordain- 
ed should be able solemnly to declare, that he trusts he is 
'^ inwardly moved hy the Holy Ghost to take upon him this 
office" of a minister of the gospel. This is not to be con- 
founded with the call of the church. It is distinct from it, 
and precedes it. It is, in the nature of things, the first 
matter in the special formation and designation of a minis- 
ter. Without it no man ought to enter the ministry : God 
did not send him. This rule attended to, the church 
would have no unconverted ministers, as God calls none 
who are not first reconciled to God by the death of his 
Son. " And this," says the holy martyr, Bilney, " is the 
root of all mischief in the church.^ that they" (the ministers 
of the gospel as then generally found in the church) " are 
not sent inwardly of God. Without this inward calling., it 
helpeth nothing before God, to be a hundred times elect 
and consecrate by a thousand bulls, either by pope, king, 
or emperor." See his letter to Tonstal, bishop of London. 
The following, among other scriptures, prove this divine 
call : " Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly 
is plenteous, but the labourers are few ; pray ye, therefore, 
the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers 
into his harvest," Matt, ix, 37, 38. — " And the Lord said. 
Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord 
shall make ruler over his household, to give them their por- 
tion of meat in due season?" Luke xii, 42. — "Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door 
into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the 
same is a thief and a robber." — " I am the door," John x, 
verses 1 and 9. — " But unto every one of us is given grace 
according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Where- 
fore he saith, When he ascendeth up on high, he led cap- 
tivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he as- 
cended, what is it but that he also descended first into the 
lower parts of the earth ? He that descended is the same 

4 



74 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might 
fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles ; and some, 
prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and 
teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of 
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we 
all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of 
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of 
the stature of the fulness of Christ." Eph. iv, 7-13. 

Soundness of doctrine is absolutely required. The 
nature of the case might have led men to see this : but 
human nature is blind. " The natural man receiveth not 
the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness 
unto him : neither can he know them, because they are 
spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii, 14. However, the word 
of God is decisive upon the point. The Judaizing teachers, 
that had perverted the Galatians, did not altogether reject 
Christ ; but by preaching the law of Moses, circumcision, 
&c., as NECESSARY to salvatiou, they subverted thegosjjel; 
for the necessary consequence was that Christ was 7iot a 
sujfficient Saviour. Hear the apostle, Gal. v, 1-4, " Stand 
fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us 
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to 
every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do 
the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, 
whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen 
from grace." Now St. Paul treats this as preaching an- 
other gospel, chap, i, 6. He then solemnly declares. Gal. 
i, 8, 9, " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 
any other gospel unto you than that which we have preach- 
ed unto you, let him he accursed. As we said before, so 
say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto 
you than that ye have received, let him he accursed^^ that is, 
EXCOMMUNICATED for falsc doctriue. The epistles of the 
apostles abound with passages warning against teachers of 
false doctrines. The apostles' conduct, and the conduct of 
our high Church divines, are a perfect contrast here. The 
apostles determine the truth of the ministry from the truth 
of their doctrine, and never, in treating this point, drop a 
syllable about their episcopal ordination, or their being in 
the succession ; our his-h Church divines determine the truth 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 75 

of the doctrine from episcopal ordinations and personal 
SUCCESSION, at least so far as to deny that any can be true 
ministers, true teachers, without these, however holy 
their lives, Scriptural their doctrine, and successful their 
ministry ; and declare that the ministry of all who have 
this episcopal ordination and personal succession is a 
valid ministry, and that all their ministerial acts have di- 
vine AUTHORITY, though they personally be heretics, 
SiMONisTS, and the most wicked of mankind ! 

But we have yet matter to adduce from the New Testa- 
ment more fatal to this high Church scheme than all that 
has hitherto been brought forward. The New Testament 
requires us to FORSAKE all who pretend to be ministers 
of the word, but who are plainly unholy, and who teach 
doctrines CONTRARY to the truth as it is in Jesus : so 
our Lord, Matt, vii, 15-20, " Beware of false prophets, 
which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they 
are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their 
fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of this- 
tles ? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; 
but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree 
cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree 
bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth 
good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Where- 
fore BY their fruits ye shall know them," " False 
prophets," says Grotius, " not as to Xheir mission, or calling, 
but as to their false, destructive doctrineP " Who are 
false prophets, hvX false preachers ? Who are false apostles, 
except those who preach an adulterated gospel .?" says 
Tertullian, De Praescript, c. 4. They had sheep's clothing, 
but inwardly were ravening loolves. The disciples of 
Christ were to judge of them, not hy ordination or succes- 
sion, but by their fruits. According to this rule they 
were to be on their guard against them ; not to obey them, 
nor follow them. "Let them alone," that is, "leave 
them," as the word often signifies : " they be blind leaders 
of the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall 
into the ditch," Matt, xv, 14. In John x, 5, he says of 
his sheep, that "a stranger will they not follow, but 
WILL FLEE from HIM ; for they know not the voice of a 
stranger." This at once establishes the right and duty of 
FORSAKING wicked and heretical ministers. St. Paul speaks 



76 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

of the false teachers, in the Corinthian churches, " as false 
apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into 
the apostles of Christ," 2 Cor. xi, 13. He does not hesitate 
to pronounce such the " ministers of Satan." And what 
are Xhe proofs ? \h.e\x false ordination ? that they were not 
in the succession ? Nay, the very reverse, for he speaks of 
them as heing formally " the ministers of Christ," verse 23. 
But they " handled the word of God deceitfully,^^ chap, iv, 
verse 2 : " corrupted the ivord of God,^^ chap, ii, verse 17 : 
" denied the resurrection," &;c., 1 Cor. xv. In his Epistle 
to the Galatians, he declares that '' such teachers are to 
be held accursed by us." " I would," says he, " that they 
were even cut off which trouble you," chap, v, 12. So, 
when writing to Timothy, 1 Tim. vi, 3-5, " If any man 
TEACH otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, 
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doc- 
trine which is according to godliness ; he is proud, 
knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of 
words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmis- 
ings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and des- 
titute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness : from 
such WITHDRAW thysclf." In the Second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians, the description of antichrist, in the second 
chapter, shows that he would be found in the temple of God, 
that is, would be imbodied in d^, false ministry. See Bishop 
Jewel on this epistle for abundant proof of this point. 
They are, therefore, warned against him, and are to stand 
fast, and hold the traditions which they had been taught by 
the apostle, whether by word or epistle, verse 15. He 
then says, " Now we command you, brethren, in the naine 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves 
from every brother that icalketh disorderly, and not after the 
tradition which he received from us." This may princi- 
pally refer to private Christians. But then the argument 
applies with increased force to ministers, in proportion to 
their obligations to holiness and truth, and to the pernicious 
effects of their conduct when standing opposed to truth and 
godliness. Yet I am by no means satisfied that the apos- 
tle did not mean directly to refer to ministers as well as 
to private members. He certainly speaks of his own con- 
duct, and that of his felloio-labourers, Silvanus and Timo- 
theus, as being particularly suited to bear on the case he 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 77 

wished to reprove : but it bore on that case most directly 
as they were ministers ; therefore, it is probable, that it was 
to some loho were ministers that he designed his observa- 
tions to apply. Now Tie solemnly commands^ in the name 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they withdraw themselves 
from every such brother, from every such minister, who 
toalked disorderly, and not after the tradition received from 
the apostles. So in Romans xvi, 17, 18, " Now I beseech 
you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and of- 
fences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; 
and AVOID them. For they that are such serve not our 
Lord Jesus Christ ; but their own belly ; and by good 
words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." 
He tells the presbyters of Ephesus in Acts xx, 29, 30,— 
" For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous 
WOLVES enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also 
of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse 
things, to draw away disciples after them." To suppose 
the Jlock hound by the chief Shepherd to folloiv ravening 
wolves, would be monstrous. Our Lord says his sheep 
" will NOT follow" them, but " will flee from them ;" at 
once declaring and justifying the fact. 

St. John says. First Epistle iv, 1, '' Beloved, believe not 
every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God : 
because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 
And how are we to try the spirits ? He tells us else- 
where : not by episcopal ordinations, and personal succes- 
sion, but by their doctrine. This is the way antichrist 
is to be discovered. In his Second Epistle he is very ex- 
press on the subject, 7-11, "For many deceivers are 
entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ 
is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti- 
christ. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things 
which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine 
of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine 
of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there 
come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into your house, neither bid him God speed : for 
he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil 
deeds." Jude's awful descriptions and warnings princi- 
pally regarded wicked ministers. iVnd nothing can be 



78 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

plainer than that the design of his epistle is to lead all true 
Christians to avoid such corrupters of the truth. The 
seven churches in the Revelation have the same direc- 
tions. The church of Ephesus is commended for trying 
those who say they are apostles, and are not. So the 
church of Pergamos has admonitions about the Balaamites 
and Nicolaitanes. Their leaders were evidently ministers 
or teachers, and were to be rejected at the peril of God's 
judgrxiGIiLS : •' Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, 
and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth," 
Rev. ii, 16. The church at Thyatira is rebuked for " suf- 
fering that woman, Jezebel, which calleth herself a pro- 
phetess, to TEACH and seduce my servants to commit forni- 
cation," &c., verse 20. The same strain runs through the 
whole. Now everywhere truth of doctrine, and holiness 
of life, is the rule : and everywhere teachers, who are bad 
MEN and perverters of the truth, whatever might be 
their other pretensions, are to be forsaken. To con- 
clude these divine authorities : many of the Roman Catho- 
lics, before the Reformation, and the reformers generally, 
considered Rome to be the Babylon mentioned in the 
Revelation. This " Mystery, Babylon the great, the 
mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth, who 
reigned over the kings of the earth," has always pretended 
to be before all others in episcopal ordinations, personal 
succession, &c. Yet, what saith the Spirit to the churches ? 
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Rev. xviii, 1-4, 
" And after these things I saw another angel come down 
from heaven, having great power ; and the earth was 
lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a 
strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, 
and has become the habitation of devils, and the hold of 
every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful 
bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath 
of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have com- 
mitted fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth 
are waxed rich throuoh the abundance of her delicacies. 
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying. Come out 
OF her, my people, that ye he not partakers of her sins, 
and that ye receive not of her plagues." 

Here is surely enough to confound for ever such a 
scheme as we have seen exhibited by such men as Bishop 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 79 

Taylor, Dr. Hicks, Dr. Hook, &c. The words of Dr. 
Barrow, as to the duty of rejecting the pope, apply admira- 
bly to this scheme, simply changing the person of the 
pope for this Popery of binding all Christianity absolutely 
to episcopal ordinations and personal succession. For what- 
e\ex the popes have done, this succession hath done : the 
popes, as bishops of Rome, having always been the main pil- 
lars of the whole system. The scheme is one, and its claims 
are one. The perfection of the whole depends upon the 
perfection of every part. It is a chain, forming, says Dr. 
Hook, an '^ unbroken line from Peter — to the present 
day." Every body knows that the popes form the main 
LINKS in this chain. If you break the links of a chain, 
you break the chain itself. Barrow^ breaks the popes as 
links in this succession chain ; he breaks, therefore, the 
chain itself. " If, then," say he, " the bishops of Rome," 
[alias the ministers of this scheme, in any age,) " instead of 
teaching Christian doctrine, do propagate errors contrary to 
it ; if, instead of guiding into truth and godliness, they se- 
duce into falsehood and impiety ; if, instead of declaring 
and pressing the laws of God, they deliver precepts oppo- 
site, prejudicial, destructive of God's laws ; if, instead of 
promoting genuine piety, they do (in some instances) vio- 
lently oppose it ; if, instead of maintaining true religion, 
they do pervert and corrupt it, by bold defalcations, by su- 
perstitious additions, by foul mixture and alloys ; if they 
coin new creeds, articles of faith, nev/ scriptures, new 
sacraments, new rules of life, obtruding them on the con- 
sciences of Christians ; if they conform the doctrines of 
Christianity to the interests of their pomp and profit, 
making gain godliness ; if they prescribe vain, profane, 
superstitious ways of worship, turning devotion into fop- 
pery and pageantry ; if, instead of preserving order and 
peace, they foment discords and factions in the church, 
being a make-bait and incendiaries among Christians ; if 
they claim exorbitant power, and exercise oppression and 
tyrannical dominion over their brethren — cursing and damn- 
ing all that will not submit to their dictates and commands ; 
if, instead of being shepherds, they be wolves, worrying and 
tearing the flock by cruel persecutions ; they by such be- 
haviour, ipso facto, deprive themselves of authority and office ; 
they become thence no guides nor pastors to any Christian , 



80 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

there doth in such cases rest no obligation to hear or obey 
them ; but rather to decline them, to reject and disclaim them. 
This is the reason of the case. This the Holy Scripture 
doth prescribe ; this is according to the primitive doctrine, 
tradition, and practice of the church."* 



SECTION V. 

SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THESE CLAIMS, CONTIN- 
UED BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS THE SAME, PROVED 

FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Every reader must see that one of the essential pil- 
lars of this high Church succession scheme is the opin- 
ion that the order of bishops is, by divine right, superior to 
that oi presbyters, \idiYix\g powers and authority incompati- 
ble with presbyters, as presbyters ; the sole power, 
indeed, oi ordaining presbyters, and oi governing presbyters, 
as well as the people. In this section we shall produce 
from the New Testament decisive evidence against this 
position, and shall prove the truth of the declaration of the 
English reformers, Cranmer, &c., that "presbyters and 
bishops, BY God's law, are one and the same.'''' As preli- 
minary, we shall make three general observations : — ■ 

1. There is not in the whole book of God any solid 
proof that one standing order of God's ministers were 
ever appointed to have that power and authority over other 
ministers which these succession divines claim for modern 
bishops. The high priest among the Jews had the per- 
formance of some special duties of the sanctuary, typical 
of the Lord Jesus Christ ; but there is no solid proof that 
he had, by divine right, this sole power over other priests. 
The proof is so far from it, as to ordination, that all the 
consecration or ordination he had, distinct from the other 
priests, was by the hands of these priests themselves. 
This is clear from the nature of the case ; for as he could 
not succeed till his predecessor was dead, there could be 
none but common priests to consecrate or ordain him. 
Now presbyters are clearly as capable of consecrating 
bishops, as common priests were of consecrating the high 

* Dr. Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, supposition 7th. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 81 

priest. The apostles were not a standing order; but I think 
there is not very clear evidence that they had this sole 
power and authority. When churches were once planted, 
and ministers had been appointed, the apostles visited them 
to encourage them ; they wrote epistles, by immediate di- 
vine authority^ to all the saints, and sometimes, though 
seldom, they mention the ministers ; but I think we find 
no declared authority solely belonging to them as apos- 
tles, to call any ministers to account, or to depose them ; 
and I am sure they did not claim the sole right of ordain- 
ing. See 1 Tim. iv, 14. 

2. There never was any general council ; never any 
number of accredited ya^Aer^; never any modern church, 
since the time of our Lord and Saviour, who maintained 
that bishops were, by divine right, an order superior to, 
distinct from, and possessing powers and authority incom- 
patible with presbyters, as presbyters. He that affirms 
there was, let him prove it. 

3. If the sacred writers viewed this matter of the order 
of bishops, as essentially superior to that of presbyters, in 
the same light as our high Church divines do, we may ex- 
pect to find them manifest equal, or rsither greater care and 
anxiety to mark this distinction, and lay down laws to 
guard the dignity, powers, and authority of that important 
order, from all misapprehension and encroachment. This 
was done as to the Levitical priesthood, though belonging 
to a far inferior dispensation. But if w^e find the sacred 
writers speak of bishops and presbyters as identical, 
marking no distinctions, leaving no laws for the regulation 
of such distinctions, we may certainly conclude that 
the sacred writers had no such views on this point as our 
high Churchmen hold, but that bishops and presbyters are, 
by divine right, identical, — that they are one and the same 
order and office. 

Let us now turn directly to the New Testament. Here, 
and here only, is the divine rule, as to the qualifications, 
ordination, duties, and powers of gospel ministers. Beyond 
this all is human, mere matter of opinion and prudential 
arrangement. And, while nothing is done contrary to the 
letter or the spirit of the New Testament, nor any human 
arrangement urged as a matter of faith, every church is at 
liberty to make such prudential arrangements as they may 



82 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

deem most calculated for tlie glory of God, the conversion 
of sinners, and the edification of the church. 

1. The word bishop, enLOfconog, is never used in the 
New Testament to signify the office of oversight over minis- 
ter s, but onli/ over the flock of Christ. The noun emG' 
tcoTTog, episcopos, signifying bishop or overseer, is used 
only five times in the New Testament. In Acts xx, 28, 
it is distinctly said, that the Holy Ghost made the pres- 
byters of Ephesus " overseers [bishops] over the Jlock.'^ 
Again, in Phil, i, 1 :. " Paul and Timotheus, the servants 
of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus w^hich are 
at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Now here 
are only " bishops and deacons" mentioned. We have no 
mention of deacons in the New Testament as pastors ; and 
the question is only about bishops and presbyters. Here 
are not any but the people, the flock, to oversee. Dr. 
Whitby says, that "the Greek and Latin fathers do with 
one consent declare that the apostle here calls their pres- 
byters their bishops." Of course, if they all say that 
presbyters are here meant by bishops, the high Church 
advocates of modern bishops will not wish to make it out 
that the oversight exercised by these presbyters was over 
pastors, because then it perhaps might follow that these 
presbyter-bishops had the oversight over some that were 
simply bishops. The next passage is, 1 Tim. iii, 1-5 : 
" This is a true saying. If a man desire the office of a 
bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be 
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good 
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach ; not given to 
wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, 
not a brawler, not covetous ; one that ruleth w^ell his own 
house, having his children in subjection w^th all gravity ; 
(for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how 
shall he take care of the church of God ?)" Now here is 
not a word about the oversight over pastors, but about 
" taking care of the church of God." When ministers and 
people are spoken of in this manner, the church of God 
distinctly means the people, " the flock." So, " Take heed 
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the fiock over the 
which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed 
the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own 
blood," Acts XX, 28. And it is evident the apostle means 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 83 

the same thing in 1 Tim. iii, 1-5, for he compares " taking 
care of the church of God" to a man's " ruling well his 
own house, having his children in subjection^ Pastors 
are always stewards or householders, but never the children, 
when the relation between the members of God's house- 
hold is thus represented. The word ETnanoTTog occurs 
again in Titus i, 7 : " For a bishop must be blameless, as 
the steward of God ; not self-willed, not soon angry, not 
given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre." This 
passage is the same in substance as the former, and must 
have the same interpretation. The last place in the New 
Testament where the word occurs, is 1 Pet. ii, 25 : *' For 
ye -.were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto 
the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Here it is ap- 
plied to our adorable Redeemer ; but it is distinctly ex- 
plained as referring to him, not in the character of chief 
Pastor, as superintending other pastors, but as to his over- 
sight over the souls of the people — " Bishop of your souls." 
What can be a clearer proof, that^the title of bishop, in the 
New Testamicnt, was not given to designate an office 
principally distinguished in its superiority by its oversight 
over other pastors, than this, that the word is never so 
USED in the New Testament ; but always and only to imply 

OVERSIGHT OVER THE FLOCK ? 

2. Bishops and presbyters in the New Testament have 
the NAMES COMMON, that is, bishops are called presbyters, 
and presbyters are called bishops, indifferently ; therefore 
they are essentially one and the same. It is granted by 
Episcopalians, high and low, that the names are common. 
Dr. Hammond, in chapter sixth of his Fourth Dissertation 
against Blondel, admits this, as to the fathers in general, 
and quotes the words of Theodoret, that " they both had 
the names common." And CEcumenius, says he, follow- 
ing Chrysostom, declares the same. So Bishop Taylor 
says, " All men grant that (in Scripture) the names are 
confounded,^'' sec. 32 : and even Dr. Hook does not deny 
this. However, these writers deny the conclusion, that 
the names being thus common, the offices are essentially 
the same : we affirm it. We affirm it from the usage of 
the language of the New Testament. There is no in- 
stance, in the New Testament, of using the names of offi 
cers so in common, and of employing the terms indiffer 



84 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ently, the one for the other, without any marked distinc- 
tion ; and yet those offices remaining essentially different 
and incompatible. Apostles are sometimes called elders ; 
but apostles are not called elders, and elders apostles, in- 
differently, and without distinction : they are mentioned 
together and distinctly, " apostles and elders," Acts xv, 6 
and 23. Now this is never the case with bishops and 
presbyters ; they are never thus distinguished. When 
either of the terms bishop or presbyter is used, the other 
is never used along with it ; which proves they meant the 
same thing, as one always sufficed without the other. The 
same remarks apply to the word deacon. The general 
meaning of this word is minister. It is sometimes, there- 
fore, used for an apostle, as an apostle was a minister of 
Christ. But then the distinction is plain enough in the 
New Testament ; and for any one to say that apostles are 
called deacons, and deacons apostles, indifferently in the 
New Testament, would only be to expose himself to the 
contempt of every thinking person. The language of the 
New Testament, then, establishes the conclusion, that, 
where the " names are common," the things are substan- 
tially the same. Besides, the contrary position is absurd, 
and implies a strange imputation upon the Scriptures 
themselves, viz., that they should use the '' names in com- 
mon and confound them," while the things were essen- 
tially different. This would be to say that the apostles, 
and the Holy Spirit that inspired them, were either unable 
to distinguish things by right names, or were totally negli- 
gent of such distinctions in matters of the highest import- 
ance ; or, lastly, that they designed to mislead their readers 
under the ambiguities ^language :* all of which are im- 

* Mr. Sinclair (p. 10) actually declares that " we cannot reasonably 
look in the Holy Scriptures for any regular discussion or explicit state- 
ments" on these subjects ; yet he and his brethren think they can 
" reasonabhf excommunicate others for not receiving that for which 
they " cannot reasonably look" in the Scriptures. He pronounces it 
" idle to expect'^ these things in the writings of the New Testament. 
There is good reason with Mr. Sinclair and such writers for these 
statements : they know the New Testament fails to support their cause. 
He asserts (p. 14) that the " offices of religion (of Christianity) could 
NOT at once possess appropriate designations." So the Holy Ghost 
really " could not give appropriate designations" to the officers of the 
church without the help of ecclesiastics ! ! Accordingly, he says, Cp ^^ ^ 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 85 

putations so monstrously absurd, not t6 say blasphemous, 
that no pious mmd could maintain them, when seen, for a 
single moment. There is no such usage in any language, 
as that names should be common and confounded, where 
things are essentially different: the thing is impossible. 
The community of names, therefore, in the New Testa- 
ment, between bishops and presbyters, implies a com- 
munity of attributes, a substantial identity of nature ; and 
that bishops and presbyters are not only nominally^ but 
really and indeed, one and the same office. We will now 
give a few examples from the New Testament of this 
community of names. In Paul's Epistle to the Philip- 
pians, he thus addresses them, chap, i, 1 : " Paul and Ti- 
motheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in 
Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and 
deacons." " The Greek and Latin fathers," it is granted, 
" do with one consent declare that the apostle here calls 
their presbyters their bishops." In his Epistle to Titus, 
chap, i, 5-7, he speaks as follows : " For this cause left I 
thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbyters] in every 
city, as I had appointed thee : if any be blameless, the 
husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused 
of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the 
steward of God : not self-willed, not soon angry, not given 
to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre." Flere no- 
thing can be clearer than that presbyters and bishops are 
spoken of as identical. To say, ordain elders, for a bishop 
must be blameless, is like saying, crown the sovereign, 
for the king must be crowned. In 1 Tim. iii, 1, 2, &c., 
the same subject is treated nearly in the same words. In 
Timothy, the term bishop only is used, it being indifferent 
which was employed, whether bishop or presbyter, as they 
both meant the same. i\.gain, in Acts xx, 17 and 28^ — 
" And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the 

" We must NOT expect words and phrases to be used with the same 
precision, on their first appropriation," in the New Testament, "to 
ecclesiastical things and persons, as we find them in later ages : when 
their peculiar and restricted meaning was established, and when fami- 
liarity with their new interpretation had dissolved ancient associations." 
Is not this saying that ecclesiastics, and not the Lord Jesus Christ and 
his apostles, are to establish the terms and laws of office in Chris- 
tianity '? The pope and Church of Rome never demanded more. 



86 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

elders [presbyters] of the church. And when they were 
come to him, he said unto them, Take heed, therefore, 
unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the 
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, [bishops,] to feed 
the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own 
blood." In these passages the matter is so clear, that to 
add any remarks would be to insult the ^reader's under- 
standing. St. Peter's language proves the same point. 
In his first epistle, chap, v, 1-3, he thus speaks : " The 
ELDERS which are among you I exhort, who am also an 
ELDER, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also 
a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed : feed the 
flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight 
thereof, [eTnafcorrovvreg, acting the bishops,) not by 
constraint, but vv^illingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a 
ready mind ; neither as being lords over God's heritage, 
but being ensamples to the flock." 

So much for the names ; we now come to the things. 

3. Bishops and presbyters have the same qualifica- 
tions. Titus i, 5-7; 1 Tim. iii, 1, 2, &c. ; Acts xx, 17 
and 28. 

4. Bishops and presbyters have the same ordination. 
Acts XX, 17 and 28 ; Titus i, 5-7. 

5. Bishops and presbyters have the same duties : proofs 
as before. 

6. Bishops and presbyters have the sa?ne power and 
authority. In the above passages no distinction is made ; 
neither is there any in the New Testament, at least in 
favour of bishops. 

But, 

7. Presbyters only are expressly said to ordain. " Neg- 
lect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by 
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," 1 Tim. iv, 14. 

8. The apostles sometimes call themselves presbyters, 
but never bishops. 

The term eTnofiOTTT], in a quotation from the Old Testa- 
ment, is o?ice (Acts i, 20) applied to the office of an apostle 
in the New Testament ; and is translated " bishopric :" 
however, it is never repeated, in this use for the apostle- 
ship, in the direct language of the New Testament. This 
is remarkable. The apostles, therefore, are never called 
bishops in the New Testament ; neither is their office ever 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 87 

designated by any cognate or similar term in the direct 
language of the New Testament. 

9. Presbyters are mentioned as joining the apostles in 
the COUNCIL at Jerusalem, but no express mention is made 
of bishops. Acts xv, 2, 4, 6, 22, 23. 

10. The collections for the poor at Jerusalem are to be 
sent to the presbyters, and no mention of bishops. Acts 
xi, 30. 

11. It is well known that each church, containing the 
congregation of a city and its suburbs, was, in the apostles' 
time, the whole diocess. It was never called diocess by 
the earliest Christian Avriters ; the term parish was the 
usual appellation. Now presbyters are the only ministers 
expressly mentioned as having the oversight and govern- 
ment of the churches planted by Paul and Barnabas : Acts 
xiv, 23, " And when they had ordained them elders [pres- 
byters] in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they 
commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." 

If half so much could be said for the divine right of the 
superiority of bishops, as is found in Nos. 7-11, for the 
apparent superiority of presbyters over bishops, we should 
be accounted profane to doubt their eminence, dignity, 
powers, and authority. Here the presbyters are the only 
persons expressly mentioned as having the right and au- 
thority to lay on hands in ordination ; what sacrilege, then, 
it would be said, to violate this divine order ! The apostles 
are called presbyters ; therefore presbyters are apostles, 
and the only successors to their power and authority. 
This is triumphantly proved, it v/ould be argued in the 
same style, by the presbyters being the only ministers 
acting with the apostles in sacred council at Jerusalem. 
They only were intrusted with the collections sent by other 
churches to Jerusalem ; therefore all the goods of the 
church are by divine right under their government. They 
were the only persons expressly said to be placed in each 
diocess by the apostles themselves : who, then, can doubt 
tiiat, whatever other ministers might be added afterward, 
they must be inferior to these apostolically succeeding 
presbyters ? 

Any man who knows church history, and the history 
of bishops, councils, and successions, will know that not 
a hundredth part of their proceedings have half so much 



88 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

apparent divine right as is shown in the above particulars 
for the superiority of presbyters over bishops. And yet 
we do not seriously maintain that any essential difference 
existed between them. However, all the difference cer- 
tainly appears in favour of the divine right of the superi- 
ority of presbyters over bishops. They were all bishops ; 
but a presbyter-bishop was superior in gravity and wisdom, 
and in the authority which these qualities gave to him, 
over one who was simply a bishop. 

Let the reader peruse again the statements of the suc- 
cession divines, sec. i, and consider whether he finds a 
single point of that system established by Scriptural evi- 
dence. Not a word in the New -Testament about bishops 
as a superior order to presbyters ; about the sole power of 
ordaining ministers belonging to them ; and about no mi- 
nistry nor ordinances being valid but such as emanate 
from these " spiritual princes and vicegerents" of God and 
of Christ ; — not a word will he find clearly in proof of these 
strange pretences. 

The pretence, then, for bishops as an order superior to 
presbyters, has no ground in the New Testament ; the 
CONTRARY is plainly made out in this section. Presbyters 
have, therefore, by divine right, equally as much power 
to ORDAIN ministers, and to govern the church, as bishops ; 
nay, they have certainly more, for there is plain. Scriptural 
authority for their doing these things, but there is none 
expressly for bishops. All the other Protestant 
CHURCHES IN EuROPE, besides the Church of England, 
have ordination hy presbyters. Their ministers, therefore, 
and ordinances, are equally valid with those of the Church 
of England ; aiid more conformable to express Scripture, 
" Whatsoever,''^ says Bishop Taylor, as the champion of 
high Church episcopacy, " w^as the regiment of the church 
in the apostles^ times, that must be perpetuall, (not so as to 
have all that which was personall, and temporary, but so 
as to have no other,) for that, and that only, is of divine 
institution which Christ committed to the apostles ; and 
if the church be not now governed as then, we can 
show no divine authority for our government, which 
w^e MUST contend to doe, and doe it too, or be call'd 
usurpers."* 

■^ Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 89 



SECTION VI. 

THE SAME ARGUMENT CONTINUED PRESBYTERS AND 

BISHOPS THE SAME ; PROVED FROM THE PUREST CHRIS- 
TIAN ANTIQUITY. 

We are now coming upon ground of no essential im- 
portance to our cause. Divine right can only be proved 
by DIVINE AUTHORITY ; the fathers are mere human au- 
thority : they never expected to be received in any other 
light. Indeed no church, not even the Church of Rome, 
ever confined itself to the authority of the fathers any fur- 
ther than they found that authority favour their schemes 
and designs. Let any man read even Bishop Taylor's 
Liberty of Prophesying, sections 5-8, and he will be 
abundantly satisfied on this point. A short extract or two 
from him may suffice. " No church at this day admits 
the one-half oi iho^e things, which certainly by the fathers 
were called traditions apostolical,^^ sec. 5. " And, there- 
fore, it is not HONEST for either side to press the authority 
of the fathers, as a concluding argument in matters of 
dispute, unless themselves will be content to submit in all 
things to the testimony of an equal number of them, which 
I am certain neither side v/ill do," sec. 8. One of the 
greatest of the fathers, St. Augustine, shall state this point, 
of the authority of fathers, councils, &c. To the Dona- 
tists he says, " You are accustomed to object against us the 
letters of Cyprian, the judgment of Cyprian, the council 
held under Cyprian. Now, who knows not that the holy 
and canonical Scripture is confined solely to the Old and 
New Testament ; and in this it is distinguished from the 
writings of all succeeding bishops, that no doubt nor dis- 
pute whatever is to be had about the sacred Scriptures, as 
to the truth and right of any thing contained in the same : 
but the letters of bishops, written after the confirmation of 
the sacred canon, may be reprehended or corrected, if in 
any thing they deviate from the truth, by the wiser writings 
of ANY ONE having in this matter more knowledge than they, 
or by the v/eightier authority and deeper prudence of other 
bishops or councils. And even councils themselves, held 



90 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

in particular regions or provinces, yield, without question, 
to the authority oi fuller councils, collected from the whole 
Christian world ; and these fuller councils are often cor- 
rected hy succeeding ones, when experience has brought 
something to the light which was before hid, and some- 
thing which escaped has become known ; and all this may, 
and ought to be done, without any sacrilegious presump- 
tion, any inflated arrogance, and with Christian charity."* 
This is worthy of St. Augustine. The Scriptures are 
alone divine authority ; all human writings and councils 
are fallible : their regulations are merely prudential. This 
the reformers maintained : this is the true principle of 
Protestantism. 

However, we shall see whether the boasting of these 
writers, as to the authority of the fathers, m favour of their 
scheme, is not vain also. .The best writers on this subject 
mostly confine the purest Christian antiquity to the first 
THREE CENTURIES. Now I challenge any man to produce 
clear evidence of high Church episcopacy from the fathers 
of this period. 

There is one very natural mistake into which the advo- 
cates of this opinion have fallen. It is this, — that when- 
ever bishops are mentioned distinctly from presbyters, in 
ancient writers, they immediately suppose their point is 
proved. I say this, to them, is rather a natural mistake ; 
for such men are so accustomed to use the terms bishops 
and presbyters, in their own times, for what they receive 
as, by DIVINE right, two distinct orders, that they easily 
fall into the persuasion that the ancient writers meant the 
same as they mean. Bingham has quoted, though for a 
different purpose, a good observation from Cardinal Bona : 
" They deserve very ill of the sacred rites of the church, and 
of their venerable antiquity, who measure all ancient customs 
by the practice of the present times, and judge of the primi- 
tive discipline only by the rule and customs of the age they 
live in ; being deceived by a false persuasion, that the 
practice of the church never differed in any point from the 
customs which they learned from their forefathers and 
teachers, and which they have been inured to from their 
tender years : whereas we retain many words in common 

* Contra Donatistas, lib. ii, c. 3, pp. 32, 33, vol. vii, fol. ed., Lug- 
duni, 1664, 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 01 

with the ancient fathers, but in a sense as different 
from THEIRS as our times are h'e.motb from the first ages 
after Christ. ''^^ Hence it is necessary to take care that 
we neither deceive ourselves, nor others, by a misapplica- 
tion of ivords. Mr. Sinclair (p. 21) has a strange rule of 
criticism in these matters. Having translated the word 
rjyovfievot, in St. Clement, by " supreme rulers," he justi- 
fies his translation by saying, that in '^ later times it is 
among the ordinary designations of a bishop." A very 
convenient way this of making the fathers say what we 
say. To prevent mistakes in words, it will be proper to 
fix the meaning of the terms or do, gradus, &c., order and 
degree, as used bv the fathers. 

1. Order, and gradus or degree, then, are by the fathers 
used PROMISCUOUSLY. " It is evident," says Bishop Tay- 
lor, " that in antiquity, ordo and gradus [order and degree) 
were used promiscuously." Bingham says, " St. Jerome, 
icho loill he alloioed to speak the sense of the ancients, makes 
no difference in these words, ordo, gradus, ojficium,^^ (order, 
degree, and ofice.^) 

2. By these words — oi^der, degree, and ofice — the fathers 
only meant disti?ict classes of persons, ivithout implyiiig any 
DIVINE authority for the arrangement. It is not denied by 
these divines that there were other classes of persons in 
the primitive church besides bishops and presbyters; these 
CLASSES are also called orders, offices, or degrees, by the 
ancients. So, for instance, among clerical ordinations, 
" ordinationihus clericis," Cyprian mentions his ordaining 
Aurelius to the degree, " gradus," of a " reader. "| So 
of Celerinus as to the same office ;^ — of Optatus to that of 
" suBDEAC0N."|| And Cornelius, bishop of Rome, in the 
third century, mentions " suhdeacons, clerks, exorcists, 
readers, and janitorsT^ Jerome, who, Bingham grants, 
will give us the sense of the ancients, mentions '' quinque 
ecclesi(B ordines, episcopi, preshyteri, diaconi, f deles, cate- 
cumeni ; the five orders of the church, bishops, presby- 
ters, DEACONS, the faithful, and catechumens J^^* And there 

* Bingham's Works, vol. i, Pref., p. 2, folio, London, 1726. 

t Book 2, chap, i, p. 17. t Epistola 33, ed. Painel. 

<5 Ep. 34, p. 58. II Ep. 24. 

IT Euseb. E. H. L. 6, c. 43. 

** Hieronymi Op., vol. v, fol. 41, ed. 1516 : BasiL 



92 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

is along treatise in Jerome's Works, distinctly treating up- 
on SEVEN ORDERS, "the fossarius, the doorkeeper, the reader, 
the subdeacon, the deacon, the priest or presbyter, and the 
bishop." He calls the fossarins the first degree or order, 
and the bishop the seventh ; and everywhere uses order 
and degree as synonymous. Here, then, if the term order 
means a distinct superiority by divine right, there is divine 
right for the gravediggers, doorkeepers, readers, and sub- 
deacons. If it does NOT imply divine right in four or five 
instances out of the seven, by what logic will it be made 
to signify divine right for the order of bishops as distinct 
from presbyters ? And this very writer, whether Jerome 
or not, says, that " the ordination of clergyimn, the consecra- 
tion of virgins, the dedication of altars or churches^ and the 
preparation of the chrism, were reserved to the bishop 
SOLELY for the purpose of giving him authority or honour, 
lest the discipline of the church, being separated among 
many, divisions should arise between the ministers, and 
should produce general scandal." And he goes on to show 
that presbyters are, by divine right, the same as bishops, and 
have from God power to perform all the duties of the 
church ; yea, that in a presbyter is the highest point, 
and the whole of the ministry — " Ergo in presbytero sum- 
mam sACERDOTii coUocariP^ He advises, however, to 
submit to the arrangement, made for the honour of the 
bishop and the concord of the church, only it be used with 
humility, and not with pride. 

Among the canons and decrees of the British and Anglo- 
Saxon churches, are found the canons of Elfric to Bishop 
Wulfin. Howell thinks they were both bishops. Fox, 
the martyrologist, says, " that Elfric is supposed -by Cap- 
grave, and William of Malmsbury, to have been archbishop 
of Canterbury about 996 ; and Wulfsinus, or Wulfin, to 
have been bishop of Scyrburne or Sherborn. Elfric's two 
Epistles, in the Saxon canons and constitutions, were given 
by Wulfstane, bishop of Worcester, as a great jewel to the 
church of Worcester."! In the tenth canon, Elfric num- 
bers seven degrees, or orders, as follows : — " 1, ostiarius or 
doorkeeper ; 2, reader ; .3, exorcist ; 4, acolyth ; 5, sub- 
deacon ; 6, deacon ; 7, presbyter." These are all the 

* Vol. ii, fol. 54. 

t Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. ii, p. 376, fol. ed. Lond., 1684. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 93 

orders he mentions in the church. He does not mention 
the bishops as either degree or order. But under the 
order of presbyter he says, " There is no more difference 
between the mass-presbyter and the bishop than this, that 
the bishop is appointed to confer ordinations, and to see to 
the execution of the laws of God ; which, if every presby- 
ter should do it, would be committed to too many. Both, 
indeed, are one and the same order, although the part of 
the bishop is the more honourable. Ambo siquidem unum 
EUNDEMQUE teiient ORDiNEM quamvis sit dignior ilia pars 
episcopiy^ 

These passages sufficiently prove, and more might be 
produced, that the ancients, by the terms order, degree, or 
office, only meant certain classifications of persons in the 
church, without intending to imply any divine authority 
or law for these arrangements. The use of these words 
alone, then, as applied to any distinction, in their day, be- 
tween bishops and presbyters, will never prove more than a 
human or ecclesiastical custom or arrangement. Nay, 
even the very fact of this promiscuous use of these 
terms proves that the ancients really had not the opinion 
that that distinction between bishop and presbyters was by 
divine right, and that it was such as our high Church di- 
vines maintain ; but, on the contrary, that it was by eccle- 
siastical authority alone. The supposition is absurd, that 
they should hold the same views as our divines, and yet, 
though the matter was constantly before them, should 
NEVER say so. They mention \h.e fact of the distinction 
repeatedly, especially in the second and following centu- 
ries, BUT NEVER THE DIVINE RIGHT of bishops as ail Order 
with powers incompatible with presbyters. 

In order to understand the fathers aright, as to this 
arrangement of bishops and presbyters, Jerome shall, first, 
according to Bingham, ''give us the sense of the an- 
cients." In his note on Titus, chap, i, he speaks at large 
and unequivocally, as follows : — " Presbyters and bishops," 
says he, " were formerly the same. And before the devil 
incited men to make divisions in religion, and one was led 
to say, ' I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,' churches were 
GOVERNED by the common council of the presbyters. 
But afterward, when every one in baptizing .rather made 

"^ Canones, &c., a Laur. Howel, A. M., pp. 66, 67, fol. Londini, 1708. 



94 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

proselytes to himself than to Christ, it was everywhere 
decreed that one person, elected from the rest of the 
presbyters in each church, should be placed over the 
others, that, the chief care of the church devolving upon 
hifflj the seeds of division might be taken away. Should 
any one suppose this opinion, viz., that bishops and pres- 
byters are the same, and that one is the denomination of 
age, and the other of office, is not determined by the Scrip- 
tures, but is only a private opinion, let him read over again 
the apostle's words to the Philippians, saying, ^ Paul and 
Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ which are at 
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons : grace be unto you, 
and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus 
Christ.' Philippi is one of the cities of Macedonia ; and 
certainly as to those who are noiu esteemed bishops^ not 
more than one at a time can be in one and the same city* 
But because bishops at that time were called the same as 
presbyters^ therefore the apostle speaks of bishops indif- 
ferently as being the same as presbyters. And here it 
should be carefully observed how the apostle, sending for 
the presbyters," in the plural, ^' of the single city of 
Ephesus only, afterward calls the same persons bishops^ 
Acts XX, 17, 28. He who receives the Epistle of Paul 
to the Hebrews, there finds the care of the church divided 
EQUALLY among many : ' Obey them that have the rule 
over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch for your 
souls, as they that must give account ; that they may do it 
with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for 
you.' And Peter, who received his name from the firm- 
ness of his faith, says, in his epistle, ' The presbyters 
who are among you, I exhort, who am also a presbyter, 
and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a par- 
taker of the glory that shall be revealed ; feed the flock of 
God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, 
(eTTcafcoTrovvreg, that is, superintending it,) not by con- 
straint, but willingly.' These passages we have brought 

* The reader should keep this remark before his mind in the examples 
that follow. They not only show that bishops and presbyters are 
spoken of promiscuously as being the same order ; but they also show 
an irreconcilable difference between Scriptural bishops and ecclesiastical 
bishops : of Scriptural bishops there were frequently, perhaps always, 
MANY in one and the same city ; of ecclesiastical bishops there cannot 
be more than one. 



ON APOStOLICAL SUCCESSION. 95 

forward to show, that, with the ancients, presbyters were 
the SAME as bishops. But, that the roots of dissension 
might be plucked up, a usage gradually took place that 
the chief care should devolve upon one. Therefore, as 
the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the church 
(ecclesicB consuetudine) that they are to be subject to him 
who is placed over them ; so let the bishops know that they 
are above presbyters rather by custom than by divine 
appointment, and that the church ought to be ruled in 
common." His celebrated Epistle to Evagrius treats on 
the same subject through the whole of it. He delivers 
the same sentiments in several other places of his Works. 
Still he continues to give the bishops all those titles of 
respect which Bingham and others have mistaken, or mis- 
interpreted, for marks of a distinct and superior order by 
divine right. Jerome gave them " for the honour of the 
church^'' and because they had obtained, as St. Augustine 
saith, " by the custom of the church ;" and, while no evil 
use was made of them, he was justified in so doing. 

Now it is very important to keep in mind that this is 
the judgment and testimony of the most learned of the 
JLatin fathers. Bingham, a high authority with Church- 
men, and a truly learned and candid writer, says, as we 
have seen, that " St. Jerome will be allowed to speak the 
SENSE of the ancients.^^ Jerome was consulted upon the 
highest matters of the church, even by the bishop of Rome. 
St. Augustine declares himself inferior to Jerome ; and 
says, " Nemo hominum scivit quod Hieronymns ignoravit — 
Jerome knew every thing known by man." Jerome's 
testimony on this subject, as quoted above, was referred to 
frequently in succeeding ages of the church. It was, in 
the twelfth century, introduced into the canon laiv. The 
reformers repeatedly referred to it. And this they all did 
with approbation. It never was controverted, denied, nor 
disputed, that I am aware of, by any writers of weight, nor 
any authority in the Christian church, until the sixteenth 
century ; and then only by a part of the Romish writers, 
and afterward by the high Church of England divines. 

Then let us trace and confirm each of Jerome's positions 
from the early fathers. He says, — ■ 

First, that "-presbyters and bishops were the same in the 
apostles'' times,^\ 



96 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Secondly, that " olim," formerly, "the church was ruled 
by the common council of the preshyters.'^^ 

Thirdly, that " to prevent divisions or schisms, a usage 
gradually took place, that the chief care should devolve 
upon one." The person who had this chief care was 
elected from the rest of the presbyters, and placed over 
them as a superintendent. Ambrose calls him ''inter 
preshyteros primus^'' (comment in 1 Tim. iii,) or ''primus 
presbyter, ^^ (comment in Ephes. iv,) the chief presbyter ; 
by CUSTOM, a superintendent of ministers and people, called 
for the sake of distinction a bishop. 

On this point of superintendency, it is necessary also 
to be clear. High Churchmen evidently misunderstood the 
fathers upon it. Indeed, here is the grand sophism, 
designed or undesigned, that runs through all their luritings, 
on the subject of episcopacy, jure divino. The facts of 
superintendency by bishops, mentioned by the fathers, are, 
with these writers, received as proofs of divine right and 
law. Every mention of th.Q fact of a bishop's superintend- 
ency, is, with them, a proof of episcopacy as a superior 
order, jure divino. This process is quick, and, to them, 
conclusive. But it is really full of fallacy. Even had 
the fathers maintained it, their authority would have de- 
cided nothing against the testimony of the Scripture : but 
they do not. Two of the greatest of the fathers, Jerome 
and Augustine, expressly interpret the term bishop by 
" superintendent." This superintendency, Jerome tells 
us, only came in by custom, and not by divine appoint^ 
ment : so says Augustine also, that " a bishop was above 
a presbyter by the names of honour which had obtained 
by the custom of the church."* Now, that superintendency, 
as a HUMAN arrangement, is perfectly consistent with 
EQUALITY of DIVINE RIGHT between him who superin- 
tends and those who are superintended, is plain from the 
fact of its positive existence, on a large scale in the pre^ 
sent Christian church. The Lutheran church has the 
arrangement for one minister to be placed over other 
ministers as their superintendent. And these are regu- 
larly called bishops and archbishops in Sweden and Den- 
mark. The ancient Scotch kirk had the same church 

* August. 0pp., vol. ii, p. 16, fol. ed., Lugd., 1664. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 97 

officers. The Wesleyan Methodists have the same ar- 
rangement. Their chief superintendents, in America, are 
actually and regulaily called bishops. And yet, in all 
these churches, all ministers are acknowledged equal by 
divine right. A bishop, then, in the priinitive church, was 
a superintendent. This is expressly said, (by one acknow- 
ledged to be qualified to give the sense of the ancients,) to 
be only a human arrangement, a custom ; and that, by 
divine right, both the superintendent and the ministers 
whom he superintended, were equal. When the fathers, 
therefore, mention the acts of a bishop, in superintend- 
ing others, this simply, and of itself, proves nothing, as 
to the divine right of bishops, as a distinct order, but only 
t]ie fact of such superintendency. We now proceed to the 
fathers. 

Clemens Romanus is the earliest waiter we have after 
the apostles' days. Dr. Cave places him An. Dom. 70 ; 
but Eusebius places the commencement of his bishopric, 
as it is called, A. D. 92. His Epistle to the Corinthian 
church is esteemed one of the most precious remains of 
antiquity. He never mentions together more orders than 
two, presbyters and deacons, or bishops and deacons ; 
thus exactly following the style of the New Testament, 
using the names bishop and presbyter as synonymous, both 
meaning the same order of men. He says the apostles, 
" preaching through countries and cities, appointed the 
first fruits of their conversion to be bishops and deacons 
over such as should afterward believe, having first proved 
them by the Spirit. Nor was this any thing new; seeing 
that long before it was written concerning bishops and 
deacons : for thus saith the Scripture, in a certain place, 
I will appoint their overseers (bishops) in righteousness, 
and their ministers (deacons) in faith. Our apostle kneio 
by our Lord Jesus Christ that there should be contentions 
arise upon the account of episcopacy. And, therefore, 
having a perfect knowledge of this, they appointed persons, 
as we have before said, and then gave directions,* how, 

* I have generally followed Archbishop Wake's translation. But I 
think the last sentence is not properly rendered. It should be, — " Our 
apostles' knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention 
about the name of episcopacy ; and, therefore, being endued with a 
perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid officers, viz.j 

5 



98 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

wlien tliey should die, ether chosen men should succeed 
in their ministry." Here, then, is a fair opportunity for 
treating this subject. There was a " sedition" in the 
Corinthian church, which, he says, was " against its 
PRESBYTERS," scc. 47. Clement says, all this was per- 
fectly foreseen and provided for ; and he tells us how. 
Well how was it provided for ? To be sure, by appointing 
an order of bishops over these presbyters and over the 
people, with the sole right, authority, and power of or- 
daining ministers, performing confirmations, and of govern- 
ing both ministers and people. How different is the fact ! 
Clement never mentions bishops and presbyters as distinct 
orders, but speaks of them as one and the same. " Bishops, 
with St. Clement," says Lord Barrington, " are always 
the same with elders or presbyters, as any one must see 

bishops and deacons, and gave regulations for these offices separately 
and mutually, that so when they died, other proved men might succeed 
to their ministry." 

The difference between this translation and the translation of epis- 
copal divines, is, that these divines make the " regulations" belong to 
the succession ; but the above translation makes it belong to the offices 
of bishop and deacon. Archbishop Usher translates, ^' ordinem f Dr. 
Hammond, " seriem successionis, catalogum ;" Archbishop Wake, as 
in the text. The learninar and talent of such men deserve profound 
respect. The power and influence, however, of a favourite theory are 
wonderful, even over the greatest minds. Had not this been before 
these great men, they would have seen, in a moment, that if Clement 
had meant " catalogus^''^ a catalogue, he would have written Karaloyog ; 
if, " series successionis,^' ScaSoxv ; if, or do, ra^ig. ETTtvofiT] either 
comes from cttl and vsf-uo, to distribute, divide, &c. ; or from eTrt and 
vojLLog, a laio or regulation. In the first case, it would most properly 
mean " a distribution or division" of the offices of bishops and deacons ; 
see this done, as he says, by St. Paul, in 1 Tim. iii, throughout. In 
the second derivation, it would mean " a law or regulation" of these 
offices. Mera^v, means " among, or^mutually among one another." 
His expression uera^v emvofir}, therefore, following immediately upon 
his mention of tjishops and deacons, evidently implies " a law or regu- 
lation of these offices separately and mutually." It may be doubted 
whether it ever means a catalogue, succession, or order of men. This 
proper rendering of the passage takes away all ground for the suppo- 
sition that St. Clement meant to say that the apostles left lists of per- 
sons for the succession; and shows that the regulations he mentions, 
referred to the worthiness of the persons to be ordained. Now this is 
in perfect accordance with the regulations given by St. Paul to Timothy 
and Titus ; and it is to these that Clement most probably refers ; the 
other is unworthy of St. Paul and Clement, and only tends to support 
a bad scheme. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 99 

if they read the epistle."* Of course he ^letJermentions a 
syllable about the prerogatives of bishops in ordination, con- 
jirmation, &c. ; never a syllable about their governing 
ministers as well as people. Clement knew no difference 
between a bishop and a presbyter. He uses the names as 
different denominations of the same office. 

We have heard what he says of bishops. Hear him as 
to presbyters, " Ye walked according to the laws of God, 
being subject to those who had the rule over you ; and 
giving the honour that was fitting to such as were pres- 
byters among you," sec. 1. ^' Only let the flock of Christ 
be in peace with the presbyters that are set over it," 
sec. 54. Here presbyters are set over the flock, and 
RULE them ; and are most evidently the same persons as 
those before called bishops. The occasion of his writing 
arose from the disorders in the church at Corinth, by the 
opposition of some factious members against their regular 
ministers. In speaking of this faction or sedition, he 
speaks of it " against the presbyters," sec. 47. In the 
conclusion, he exhorts to subjection unto their presbyter s^'^ 
sec. 57. Nay, he speaks of the happiness of those ''pres- 
byters''' who had finished their duties in their " episcopacy'^ 
before those times of sedition had come on, sec. 44. How 
could he have said more plainly that presbyters and bishops 
are one and the same, than by saying that presbyters exer- 
cised episcopacy, the very episcopacy which, he says, was 
meant by the Scriptures ? — yea, the very episcopacy, of 
which he declares the apostles left directions how ap- 
proved men should succeed one another in that office ? 
In those early days, a church, a city, a parish, and a dio- 
cess, were, as to extent, all one and the same thing. Now, 
according to modern episcopacy, there cannot be more than 
one bishop in one city, or diocess, at the saine time. But 
Clement always speaks of the ministers of the single city 
of Corinth, v^^hether called bishops or presbyters, in the 
PLURAL number; that is, as many bishops in the one 
church at the same time. He never mentions such a 
thing as a bishop in the singular num.ber. It is evident 
he knew nothing of modern episcopacy ; nor even of one 
presbyter acting as chief presbyter in superintending other 
presbyters. It was then exactly as Jerome says, '' presby- 

*' Miscellanea Sacra, vol. ii, p. 154, ed. 1770, 



100 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ters ruled the church in common.^'* The establishment of 
a superintendency, by one presbyter elected by the other 
presbyters to preside over themselves, took place " after- 
ward.'''' Thus, then, this most ancient of all the primitive 
writers, coeval with the apostle John, shows us that, in 
his day, the terms bishop and presbyter were only different 
names for the same office ; and that bishops and presbyters 
were one and the same order of ministers. 

Ignatius comes next. Dr. Cave places him A.D. 101. 
He is the greatest authority of high Churchmen. Cardi- 
nal Baronius also considers Ignatius's Epistles to be one 
of the bulwarks of the doctrines of the popedom. Some 
care will be necessary in examining his writings. I merely 
mention, though I do not stand upon it, that many profound 
scholars seriously doubt the genuineness of the Epistles 
which go under his name. I shall only bring one reason 
before the reader, though many migbt be added. It is 
this : that viewing the character of Ignaticvs in no ordinary 
light as a witness, and an eminent martyr for the truth, 
several parts of these Epistles are a powerful reflection on 
the soundness of his judgment, if not on the goodness of 
his heart. Such weak, silly rant, and rhodomontade, is 
found running through them, as makes a Christian half 
ashamed to own it as coming from so eminent a martyr. 
Those who contend for ihe authority of these Epistles, 
seem to me to prefer the credit of their scheme of episco- 
pacy to the character of Ignatius himself. It is probable 
the Epistles were greatly corrupted by some high advo- 
cates of priestly power and authority. Some parts of the 
Epistles, first published under his name, have been acknow- 
ledged HERETICAL, and have been rejected by the most 
learned men of the Church of England. " They laboured 
not only," says Archbishop Wake, " under many imperti- 
nencies unbecoming the character of that great man, but 
were fraught with many things that were altogether fabu- 
lous : nay, if we may credit Archbishop Usher, had some 
passages in them that tended to corrupt the very faith of 
Christ, in one of the most considerable points."* Many 
of the best continental divines, as Calvin, Salmasius, Blori- 
del, Albertinus, and Daille, reject the whole. " The 
whole question," says Mosheim, " relating to the Epistles 

* Abp. Wake's Prel. Disc, sec. 17. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 101 

of Ignatius in general, seems to me to labour under much 
obscurity, and to be embarrassed with many difficulties."* 
And even Archbishop Usher, whom high Churchmen must 
allow to be a competent and unexceptionable witness, 
having mentioned the opinion of Salmasius, that all the 
twelve Epistles are either counterfeits, or certainly cor- 
rupted by interpolations in many places, adds, " to which 
judgment I willingly subscribe : having certain proof that 
six of them are counterfeits ; and that the remaining six 
are corrupted hy interpolations in very many places, ^^^ How- 
ever, we will grant them to be genuine. 

Now two points will be sufficient to settle with Ignatius. 
The first is, that, whatever he makes of bishops, he yet 
makes presbyters as high as we can desire for our argu- 
ment. He says, the deacon " is subject to the presbyters 
AS to the LAW of Jesus Christ ;" — " the presbyters pre- 
side in the place of the council of the apostles. "J " Be 
ye subject to your presbyters as to the apostles of 
Jesus Christ our hope."§ ^' Let all reverence the presbyters 
AS the sanhedrim of God, and college of apostles." Same 
Ep. " Being subject to your bishop as to the command 
of God ; and so likewise to the presbytery." Id. " See 
that ye follow — the presbyters as the apostles. "|| All the 
above passages are from Archbishop Wake's translation. 
If Ignatius's authority is worth any thing, it proves pres- 
byters to be in the place of the apostles. This is surely 
enough for the most rigid Presbyterian. 

The second point is, that he says, " Let no man do any 
thing of what belongs to the church separately from the 
bishops. Let that eucharist be looked upon as well 
established, w^hich is either offered by the bishop, or by 
him to whom the bishop has given his consent. Where- 
soever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also 
be ; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. 
It is NOT LAWFUL imthout the bishop, neither to baptize, nor 
to celebrate the holy communion ; but whatsoever he shall 
approve of, that is also pleasing unto God ; that so what- 
ever is done, mav be sure and well done. — He that does 

^ Mosheim's Ecc. Hist., cent, i, part ii, chap, ii, sec. 20. 
t Usheri Diss., p. 136 ; and see p. 13, ed. Oxon, 4to., 1644. 
t Ep. to the Magnesians. § Ep. to the Trallians. 

{j Ep. to the Smyrnian?. 



102 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

any thing without his knowledge, ministers unto the devil."* 
There is no stronger passage in favour of high Church 
episcopacy in his Epistles than this. The term translated 
"lawful," 'E^ov s^c, frequently means '^ permitted,''^ as by 
custom, or courtesy/; so Acts xxi, 37, ''May I speak unto 
thee ?" Acts ii, 29, " Men and brethren, let me freely 
speak unto you, Efov etrrecv.^^ Hence it does not neces- 
sarily mean divine law, but only what is matter of custom 
or courtesy. The expression, " Let no man do any thing 
of what belongs to the church separate from the bishop," 
simply signifies, that where a superintendent had been 
appointed for the sake of orde7\ that oi^der was to be kept. 
Very right. So say all churches where a superintendency 
has been established, though making no pretensions to 
divine right for it. To suppose the passage to mean that 
a presbyter absolutely had not power, by divine right, to 
haptize,^to celebrate the holy communion, nor to do any 
THING that belongs to the church, except the bishop bade 
him, is absurd, and is confuted by Ignatius himself; for he 
says, " the presbyters are in the place of the apostles." 
Surely men that are the " sanhedrim of God and the college 
of the apostles'^^ have divine authority to baptize, &c., when 
occasion should require it, whether the bishop bade them 
or not. Indeed, ffty places might be quoted from coun- 
cils, and better writers than the author of these Epistles, 
where this mode of expression means nothing but human 
arrangement. We find bishops themselves forbid by a, 
council to do certain things without the archbishop.^ Is the 
order of archbishops, then, by divine right also ? These 
advocates will not say so. " No bishop v/as to be elected 
or ordained," says Bingham, " without their (the metro- 
politans') consent and approbation ; otherwise the canons 
pronounce both the election and the ordination null. "J 
What Aviil our high Churchmen make of this — a matter 
determined by the authority of hundreds of bishops in 
council ? Will they say it has divine right ? Then num- 
bers of the English bishops' ordinations were null ah 
initio : for they frequently were not ordained by their ine- 
tropolitan, nor with his consent. Nay, it will destroy 

* Ep. ad Smyrn., sec. 8. 

t See the Council of x^ntioch, (90 bishops,) A. D. 341, can. 9. 

X Bingham, b. ii, chap, xvi, sec, 12. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 103 

Archbishop Parker's ordination, upon which all the 
ordinations of the present bishops and clergy of the Church 
of England depend. For the canons require a metropoli- 
tan to be ordained by his patriarch, or, at least, by all the 
bishops pf his province. Now Parker was ordained by 
neither, but against the consent of the first, and only by 
three or four, if any, of the last, many of the rest being 
opposed to his ordination. 

Even bishops were not allowed to do any thing of im- 
portance WITHOUT \he presbyters. Bishop Overall himself 
affirms this in his letters to Grotius,* " Notum est antiqui- 
tus, NIHIL 7najoris momenti episcopum sine concilio sui 
presbyterii fecisse — It is a known matter that anciently the 
bishop did nothing of moment without his council of 
presbyters." So Cyprian apologizes for ordaining only a 
subdeacon without the presbyters and deacons, Ep. 24. 

But Ignatius says, "Whatever the bishops shall ap- 
prove of, that is also pleasing to God.^^ Now it is clear 
that he makes the power or authority of the bishop in re- 
straining and in permitting to be equal. Whatever he 
could prohibit the presbyters from doing, he could equally 
appoint and approve of their doing the same thing. He 
could restrain them from baptizing, and he could appoint 
them to baptize. His authority in both respects was equal. 
Apply this to ordaining ministers. Suppose he could 
restrain presbyters from ordaining ; he could equally ap- 
point them to ordain ministers ; and then their performance 
of this duty " would be pleasing to God." Then pres- 
byters, as presbyters, have as much inherent power to 
ordain, as they have to baptize, or to do any thing else 
in the church. This is clearly the doctrine of Ignatius. 
Now all Churchmen allow they have the power and au- 
thority as presbyters to baptize. They have, therefore, 
from the principles of Ignatius, power and authority to or- 
dain ministers, to confirm, &c., as much as bishops have. 
The only difference was, that for the honour of the bishop, 
and by ecclesiastic arrangement, they were not to do 
these things without the permission of the bishop. 

Hence, then, even Ignatius says nothing to prove high 
Church episcopacy of divine right ; but the contrary, 
that '^ presbyters are in the place of the opostles,^^ "the 

* Epi.stoIcE Prcpstaniium Yirorum, p. 460, ed. sccund. 



104 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

college of the apostles,^^ " the sanhedrim of God.'^ Stil- 
lingfleet says, " In all those thirty-five testimonies produced 
out of Ignatius's Epistles for episcopacy, I can meet with 
but one which is brought to prove the least semblance of 
an institution of Christ for episcopacy ; and if .1 be not 
much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken 
too."* The bishop, as superintendent, for the sake of 
ORDER, had, by ecclesiastical arrangement, the oversight of 
all, and authority to regulate the administration of the af- 
fairs of the church. So have the Lutheran superintendents ; 
so have the Wesleyan Methodist superintendents : but they 
and all the other ministers of those churches are eqical hy 
divine right. So were all the ministers in Ignatius's time. 

Poly carp was contemporary with Ignatius. There is 
extant an Epistle under his name ; having much greater 
marks of genuineness and purity than any of those under 
the name of Ignatius : indeed, there appears no reasonable 
ground of objection against it. He commences by saying, 
" Polycarp and the presbyters that are with him, to the 
church of God, which is at Philippi." He exhorts them 
to be ^' subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God 
and Christ." He never once mentions such a word as 
bishop from the commencement to the conclusion. How 
different this from the episcopal mania of the pseudo- 
Ignatius ! How different, too, from what would be the 
style of modern Episcopalians ! Would a modern bishop 
write to the church or diocess of another bishop, and yet 
never mention such a term as bishop ? No such thing. 
This proves, along with a thousand other things of the 
same character, which for brevity's sake we omit, that 
modern episcopacy, leaving out of question divine right, 
has no resemblance to the government of the church in 
the days of Clement and Polycarp. 

Justin Martyr flourished about A. D. 155. The most 
celebrated passage in his Works, relating to the present 
question, is in his Apology, from c. 85 to 88. The presi- 
dent of the Christian assembly he denominates Trgoeg-Gyg. In 
these chapters, this term, and this only^ as designating the 
minister, occurs six times : neither the term bishop nor 
presbyter is used at all. The word simply means a pre- 
sident. Reeves, the translator of Justin, a Churchman, 

* Iren. 309. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 105 

and who loses no opportunity of opposing sectarians, 
allows, in his notes on the passage, that the iTQoeg'Odg of 
Justin, the probati seniores of Tertullian, the majores natu, 
in Cyprian's Works, (Ep. 75,) and the Tipoe^wre^ Tr^^ecr- 
jSvreQoi, or presiding presbyters, of St, Paul, (1 Tim. 
iv, 17,) were ail one and the same. Now Tertullian, 
Cyprian, (or rather Firinilian, the celebrated bishop of 
Cesarea, in Cappadocia,) and St, Paul, ail mean presby- 
ters. Their language cannot be otherwise interpreted 
without violence. " Presbyter," says Bishop Jewel,* " is 
expounded in Latin by natu major.^^f The bishop was, 
doubtless, included in the presbyter ; they were both one. 
Indeed, Irenaeus, in an Epistle to Victor, called in later 
days bishop of Rome, thus addresses him, (circa. A, D. 
200,) " The PRESBYTERS w^ho, before Soter, presided 
over that church which you now govern, — I mean Anicetus 
and Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus." Here this 
ancient and celebrated writer expressly calls those persons 
presiding presbyters, w^hom later WTiters call bishops 
of Rome. This demonstrates that the president in each 
Christian church, in the time of Justin, was a presbyter. 

Irenaeus flourished about Ann. Dom. 184. He mentions 
both presbyter and bishop, but he uses them synonymously. 
Some persons who have only seen the partial quotations 
of high Church succession divines may doubt my asser- 
tion. However, they shall judge for themselves, and then 
decide what opinion they can have of the fairness of these 
Avriters. These divines have generally quoted Irenaeus 
about the succession of bishops, as though he meant a 
succession of bishops, by divine right, and of bishops 

* "If ye [Mr. Harding] had been either so sagely studied as ye 
pretend, and your friends have thought, ye might soon have learned 
that presbyter or priest is nothing else but senior, that is, an elder, and 
that a priest and an elder are both one thing. And therefore, whereas 
St. Paul saith : Adversus preshyterum accusationem ne admiseris, St. 
Cyprian, translating the same, saith thus : Adversus majorem natu ac- 
cusationem ne reciperis. Your own Doctor Thomas Aquina saith : 
Presbyter Greece, Latine senior, interpretatur. St. Hierome saith : 
Idem est presbyter qui episcopus. These two words, TrpeafSvr epo^y 
TrpeaiSvTarog, are expounded in Latin, natu major, natu maximus, 
1 Tim. V. Cyprian ad Quirin, lib. iii, cap. 76. Thom. Secund. Se- 
cunda, quest. 184, art. 6, dist. 24, Cleros. Hieron. ad 1 Tit. c. i." — Bp. 
Jewel's Defence of the Apology, part vi, p. 527, fol. ed., 1609. 

t Defence of the Apology, part vi, p. 527, fol. ed., 1689. 

5* 



106 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ALONE as successors of the apostles. Let us hear him on 
the other side. He is, in the following passage, speaking 
of some who left the Scripture, and pretended tradition for 
their errors. " But," says he, " when we appeal to that 
tradition which has been preserved to us by the succes- 
sions of PRESBYTERS in the churches — qu(B per succes- 
siONES presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur — they 
presume they are wiser not only than the presbyters, but 
even than the apostles, and that they have found the truth 
in a purer form."* In the next chapter he calls this succes- 
S1071 the succession of bishops, which, as it is agreed on 
both sides, we need not quote. In the very celebrated 
Epistle, above mentioned, to Victor, bishop of Rome, he 
speaks of Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xys- 
tus, presiding as presbyters over the Church of Rome ; 
though these persons, by later writers, are all reckoned as 
bishops of Rome. These presbyters are all, even by Pa- 
pists and high Churchmen, put as links into the succession 
chain : they have no chain without them. He repeats the 
same m.ode of speaking of these presiding presbyters three 
times over in this letter, though a short one, and never 
uses any other ; never calls them bishops. He uses the 
word bishops as to the Asiatics, but not as to the Romans ; 
which would almost lead one to think that the term pres- 
byter, at Rome, in that age, was still considered the 7nost 
honourable denomination, as it certainly seems to have been 
in the apostles' days, and for some time after. For what 
provincial bishop would write to the archbishop of Canter- 
bury, and, referring him to half a dozen of his predeces- 
sors in that see, would yet never call them any thing but 
presbyters, except he thought the title was the most hon- 
ourable one ? " Would not any man now bee deemed 
rude and saucy, who should talk in that style" to the arch- 
bishop ?t Again, " Wherefore obedience ought to be ren- 
dered to those who are presbyters in the church, who 
have, as we have shown, succession from the apostles, and 
who, WITH the succession of their episcopacy, have a* 
sure deposite of the truth divinely granted to them accord- 
ing to the good pleasure of our heavenly Father. "J These 
are said to be presbyters, that is, jn^operly such, " qui in eccle- 

* Lib. 3, c. 2. t Barrow's Supremacy, supp. v, p. 167, 4to. 1610. 
t Lib. 4, G. 43. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 107 

sta SUNT PRESBYTERi." But these presbyters have the 
true apostolical succession^ and, as presbyters, have episco- 
pacy ; that is, preside over the church, rule the church in 
common. In the next chapter, speaking still of presbyters 
as presiding over the church, he tells us that we ought to 
FORSAKE those who were wicked, though they held the 
chief seat, and that we ought to cleave to those who joined 
pur^ity of doctrine to holiness of life : " Now those who are 
by many received as presbyters, yet serving their own 
lusts, and not having the fear of God before them ; but, 
being puffed up with the chief seats, (principalis consessio,) 
use others with contumely, and say to themselves, ' None 
see the evils we do in secret;' these areu'eproved by the 
Lord, who judges, not according to glorying appearances, 
but accordino- to the heart. From all such we ouorht to 
DEPART, and to cleave to those who preserve, as we have 
said, the doctrine of the apostles, and, along with their 
order of presbyter, maintain sound words ; and show, for 
the instruction and correction of others, an irreproachable 
conversation. The church will nourish such presbyters ; 
of whoin also the prophet (Isa. Ix, 17) speaks, ' I will give 
thy princes in peace, and thy bishops in righteousness.' 
Of whom also the Lord spake, ' Who, therefore, is a good 
and wise servant, w^hom his Lord shall place over his 
household,^ ^^ Slc.^ What can be clearer than that Ireneeus 
here speaks of presbyters and bishops as the same 1 He 
says, the prophet spake of these presbyters when he said, 
" I will give thy bishops, ^^ &c. Presbyters and bishops, 
therefore, with Irenseus, were the same order, and equally 
successors of the apostles. 

One point more Iren^us will help us to rectify. The 
high Church divines quote him as though he meant that a 
succession of persons, viz., of bishops, according to their 
views, was absolutely necessary to the existence of 
Christianity and its ordinances. We shall see that he 
means no such thing. He says, as above, w^e are to leave 
those ministers ivho leave the truth, notwithstanding their 
pretence to personal succession. W^hat he principally 
aims at is this, to prove an un corrupted tradition, succes- 
sion, or delivering down of apostolical truth, faith, and 
holiness to succeeding generations ; and he uses the argu- 

* Lib. iv, cap. 44. t 



108 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

merit of a succession of ministers^ called indifferently pres* 
hyters and bishops, to prove the succession of truth against 
the monstrous heresies of his day, in which the Scriptures 
were denied or corrupted; just as we use now, against 
infidels, the uninterrupted and uncorrupted tradition of the 
Scriptures themselves, and Scripture truth to the pre- 
sent day. Accordingly, Ireneeus says, " We cannot know 
the plan of salvation, any otherwise than by those persons 
through whom the gospel has come down to us. This 
they first proclaimed by their personal ministry. After- 
ward they delivered the will of God to us in their divinely 
inspired writings, the sacred Scriptures, which were hence- 
forward to be the foundation and pillar of our faith."* 
The heretics shuffled to avoid the force of this. '* When 
we argue from the Scriptures, they (the heretics) accuse 
the Scriptures as not having the right doctrine, neither as 
sufficient authority ; that they contain views so diverse that 
they cannot he understood by those who are ignorant of 
tradition." — How like Popery, Dr. Hook, and the Ox- 
ford Tract-men ! — He then recites some of the ravings of 
the heretics, and says, " Such are the persons against 
whom we contend ; persons whom nothing can hold, but 
who wTiggle, like serpents, into every form, to escape from 
the grasp of truth. Wherefore, we must use every mode 
of arguing against them, that, being confounded with the 
discovery of their errors, we may, if possible, convert them 
to the truth."! The personal succession of ministers, (pres- 
byters and bishops he calls them indifferently,) in the 
Christian church, was one mode of argument. This was 
secondary and auxiliary to another, which was the succes- 
sion of the doctrine of Christian truth, the succession of the 
TRUE FAITH. Hear the great Protestant champion, Whit- 
aker, in the days of Elizabeth, speaking of the succession 
maintained by the early fathers, Irenaeus, &;c. : " Faith, 
therefore, is as it were the soul of this succession, which 
being wanting, a naked succession of persons is as a dead 
body. The fathers, indeed, always much more regarded 
the succession oi faith than any unbroken series of men. "J 
Irenaeus first remarks that the apostles taught no such de- 
lirious tenets as the heretics held, nor any secret doctrines. 

* Lib. iii, c. 1. t Lib. iii, c. 2. 

X Whitakeri 0pp., vol. i, p. 506, ed. Gen., 1610. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 109 

" Then," he saith, " the Christian church at Rome pos- 
sessed this* tradition of the truth by the apostles, according 
to the faith preached hy them ; and proceeds to confirm this 
statement by mentioning the succession of ministers in that 
church : " We shall declare that which was delivered from 
the apostles, which the Church of Rome possesses, the 
FAITH they preached to mankind ; and which has come 
down to us through a succession of bishops reaching to the 
present time."t Here a succession of persons is made 
auxiliary to the main point, the succession of faith. We 
allow this argument its full weight. Where a real suc- 
cession of faithful ministers has existed, it is one mode of 
proving the true faith. But does Irenaeus say that there is 
no other mode, that no churches have the faith who have 
not this succession ? He never says so. He says, " the 
Scriptures are henceforward, from the time of the apostles, 
to be the pillar and ground of our faith.''^\ Does he say 
that all are to be received as true ministers who are in the 
succession ? No. He tells us we are to forsake those 
whose lives are loicked, and to cleave to the good. 

Tertullian flourished about A. D. 198. Many readers 
know that he is quoted with as much triumph by the suc- 
cession divines as though it were impossible for us to find 
any thing in Tertullian to prove the identity of bishops and 
presbyters, or against their doctrine of succession. Let us 

* The reader will see the importance of keeping in mind the differ- 
ence between tradition, as matter of unwritten report, and tradition 
as the conveying from age to age of a written word. The first kind 
of tradition is necessarily confused and uncertain ; it is not in human 
nature to prevent it. The second kind is capable of the utmost cer- 
tainty that historic evidence can give, and that human language can 
communicate. Now it was the first kind of tradition, oral tradition, 
unwritten report, that the heretics pretended was to be the rule of in- 
terpreting the Scriptures : so do the Papists and high Church divines 
generally. The second kind of tradition, that is, the conveying down 
from generation to generation the truth of God, and the faith preached 
by the apostles, by conveying the written record of this faith, em- 
phatically THE Scriptures, — this is the tradition of the primitive 
church ; this is the tradition of Protestantism. Popery, and semi- 
popery, in all their ramifications, are founded on oral tradition, unwrit- 
ten report ; and are full of uncertainty and confusion. True Pro- 
testantism is founded on the Scriptures, the loritten record of God's 
will, and has, in its mode of communication and interpretation, the 

UTMOST possible CLEARNESS AND CERTAINTY. 

t Lib. iii, c. 3. t Lib. iii, c. 3, 



110 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

examine Tertiillian. In the work usually quoted on this 
subject, he writes against the heretics, such as those re- 
ferred to by Irenaeus. He is designing to show, that what 
is first in doctrine is the truth ; and that the heresies he 
opposes sprung up after the apostles' times, and were, 
therefore, extraneous and false : " But if any of the here- 
tics dare to connect themselves with the apostolic age, that 
they may seem to be derived from the apostles, as existing 
under them, we may say, ' Let them, therefore, declare the 
origin of their churches ; let them exhibit the series of their 
bishops, so coming down by a continued succession from the 
beginning, as to show their first bishop to have had some 
apostle or apostoUcal man as his predecessor or ordainer, 
and who continued in the saine faith with the apostles.^ 
For this is the way in which the apostoHcal churches cal- 
culate the series of their bishops.^^* This passage is the 
triumph of succession divines. Now, that a succession of 
ministers was rightly urged against those who, by rejecting 
or corrupting the Scriptures, introduced into the Chris- 
tian church the wildest ravings, such as the Cerinthians, 
the Yalentinians, Basilidians, &c., we have shown in our 
observations on Irenseus ; to which place we request the 
reader to refer, as the subject is the same in both authors. 
But is this all Tertullian says about the rule of faith, 
in opposition to heretics ? The reader shall judge of the 
conduct of those who would lead others to believe it to be 
so. Within half-a-dozen lines of the passage above quoted, 
he shows that he only meant this personal succession as 
one mode of showing the main point, viz., the succession of 
apostolical faith : "But if the \iQxe\ics feign oy fabricate 
such a succession, this wiM not help them. For their 
doctrine itself, compared with the doctrine of the apostles, 
will, by its own diversity and contrariety, pronounce 
against them, that it had not, as its author, either any 
apostle or apostolical man ; for as there was no difference 
among the apostles in their doctrine, so neither did any 
apostolical men teach any thing contrary to them ; except 
those who divided fro7n the apostles, and preached 
differently. To this form of trial will appeal be 
made by those churches henceforward daily established, 

* Dc Prescript., c. 32. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Ill 

which, though they have neither any of the apostles nor 
any apostolical men for their founders^ yet all agreeing in 
the SAME FAITH, are, from this consanguinity of doc- 
trine, to be esteemed not less apostolical than the 
former. Therefore our churches having appealed to both 
forms of proving themselves to be apostolical, let the 
heretics show some form by which they can prove the 
same. But they cannot show this; for it does not exist: 
therefore they are not received into communion by those 
churches which are every way apostolical, for this rea- 
son, because of the difference of their faith, which is 
in no sense apostolical." O ! Tertullian, this is hard ! 
What ! will not a succession of bishops help us at all, 
without a succession of the faith taught by the apostles 1 
So he says. But what is a heavier stroke still, he says 
the succession of faith alone will make a church equally 
apostolical as those who have the succession of faith and 
the succession of persons too. This is death to the 
scheme of our high Church divines. He has much more 
to the same purpose in this very treatise : — " What if a 
bishop, or a deacon, or a widow, or a virgin, or a doctor 
in the church, or a confessor, shall have fallen from the 
faith, shall heresy by them obtain the authority of the truth ? 
What ! do we prove faith by persons, and not rather 
persons by the faith ?" c. 3. '* Our Lord instructs us 
that many ravening ivolves will be found in sheep's cloth- 
ing. Who are these ravening wolves, except deceitful 
workers, that lurk in the church to infest the flock of 
Christ ? Who are false prophets, but false preachers ? 
Who are false apostles, except those who preach an adul- 
terated gospel ?" c. 4. Hear this, ye semi-popish suc- 
cession divines ! who frequently preach for doctrine the 
commandments of men, and make void the law of God by 
your doctrine of traditions. But to proceed with Tertul- 
lian on the succession of faith : " Immediately after the 
day of Pentecost, the twelve apostles, which by interpreta- 
tion means missionaries, first having preached ihe faith to 
the churches throughout Judea, then went into the whole 
world, publishing the very same doctrine of the same faith 
to the nations of the earth. Churches were established 
in every city by the apostles ; from v/hich churches the 
SUCCESSION of faith, and the seeds of doctrine, were 



112 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

derived to other churches ; and daily continue to be derived, 
to GIVE them existence as churches. And by this pro- 
cess these succeeding churches will he esteemed apostoli- 
cal, as the offspring of apostolical churches." Here the 
reader sees again it is faith., and faith ordy, that is, the 
true doctrine of the gospel, which constitutes the essen- 
tial character of a Christian church. Again, "I am an 
HEIR of the apostles. As they provided for me as by will, 
committing the same to the faith, and establishing it as by 
OATH, so / hold it. But they have disinherited you heretics, 
and cast you out as aliens and enemies : but whence are 
heretics aliens and enemies to the apostles ? it is by oppoj- 
sition of DOCTRINE." C. 37. 

But what says TertuUian about the order of bishops by 
DIVINE right 1 You shall hear : " The highest priest, who 
is the bishop, has the right of administering baptism. 
Then the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the 
authority of the bishop, because of the honour of the 
church." Well, (our opponents will reason,) here, at 
least, bishops are high priests ; now the high priest was 
an order by divine right superior to the other priests ; it 
follows, then, bishops are a divine order above presbyters. 
Besides, presbyters can do nothing without the bishop's 
authority. What can be more decisive 1 So triumph our 
high Churchmen from this passage. Their triumph shall 
be short. They have not generally the honesty to quote 
the very next loords, as this would spoil all in a moment. 
We will give the whole passage : " The highest priest, 
who is the bishop, has the right of administering baptism. 
Then the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the autho- 
rity of the bishops, because of the honour of the church. 
This being preserved, peace is preserved. Otherwise 
the RIGHT belongs even to laymen. However, the laity 
ought especially to submit humbly and modestly to the 
discipline or ecclesiastical regulations of the church in these 
matters, and not assume the office of the bishop, seeing 
their superiors, the presbyters and deacons, submit to the 
same. Emulation is the mother of divisions. ^ All 
things are lawful to me,' said the most holy Paul, *but 
all things are not expedient.' Let it suffice that you use 
your LIBERTY in cases of necessity, when the condition of 
the person, or the circumstances of time or place compel 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 113 

you to it."* This is too plain to need comment. To pre- 
vent divisions, as Jerome says, to secure the peace of the 
church by taking away emulation, the mother of divisions, 
Tertullian shgws, one presbyter was placed over the rest, 
as the highest priest, that is, the highest presbyter : and 
yet by no divine right : all, even laymen have, he says, 
*^ the RIGHT." His words are, " Alioquin etiam laicis jus 
estr This is enough for our present argument, and, with 
other bearings of his words, we, at present, have nothing 
to do. 

In his most celebrated work, his Apology, while de- 
scribing the order and government of the church, he says, 
" President prohati quique seniores, &c. Approved 
elders or presbyters preside among us ; having received 
that honour not by money, but hy the suffrages of their 
hretliren^'' cap. 39. f Reeves, who was, as has been re- 
marked, a rigid Churchman, in his note on the place, says, 
" The presiding elders here are undoubtedly the same with 
the npoe^o)^ in Justin Martyr." (Vid. p. 105 of this 
Essay.) Here the presbyters preside. One as primus 
presbyter, as the highest priest or highest presbyter, was, 
by the suffrages of his brethren, appointed or ordained to 
preside over the rest ; and, for distinction's sake, was 
called bishop. So in another very noted passage in his 
Praescriptions against Heretics, he speaks of the apos- 
tolical churches " over which the apostolical chairs 
still presided. ^^ The order was usual, in the meetings of 
ministers in the primitive church, for the ministers' chairs 
to be set in a semi-circle. The maddle chair was raised a 
little above the rest. The highest presbyter or priest sat 
in this, and the other presbyters or priests sat round him. 
The deacons were never allowed chairs ; they always 
stood. I mention the fact without justifying it. Now 
these were the chairs Tertullian means. The presbyters 
sat in them, and thus in council presided over the church in 
common. So says Jerome, '' The church was governed by 

* De Baptismo, c. 17. 

t *' Seniores are, in the Greek language, called presbyters," says 
the learned Popish ecclesiastical historian, Cabassutius. Notitia Eccle., 
p. 53. Indeed this is, beyond all doubt, the direct and proper sense. 
Scapula says, '' TrpeGjSvrepGg, senior :" Schrevelius : " TrpeajSvrepo^, 
presbyter, senior:" and Suicer : ^^ Trpeajdvrepog, id est, senior." 



114 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the common council of the 'preshytersP Here, tlien, pres- 
byters are apostolical successors^ sit in apostolical chairs, 
and are the same order with bishops. 

Clemens Alexandrinus flourished ahout A.D. 204. He 
says but little that bears on the subject before us. A pas- 
sage in the sixth book of his Stroniata is sometimes re- 
ferred to as supporting high Church episcopacy ; but a 
close examination of it will show that it supports nothing 
of the kind. He tells his reader, in the beginning of this 
book, that his design in it, and in the seventh, is to de- 
scribe the t7''ue " Gnostic^'' or the perfect man. He pro- 
perly begins .by showing, that he must be like God. He 
thus proceeds : — '^ Seeing God is indeed the good Parent, 
he is permanently and immutably engaged in beneficence. 
Inactive goodness is no goodness : true goodness is certain 
to be engaged in acts of goodness. He therefore who 
having subdued his passions, and having attained true 
self-denial, daily practices with increasing success true 
beneficence : he is a perfect Gnostic, and is equal to angels. 
Thus shining as the sun in acts of goodness, he sedulously 
proceeds by true knowledge, and the love of God, lilie the 
apostles, to the mansion of holiness. The apostles were 
not chosen as apostles because of any natural excellence 
or inherent virtue of theirs ; for Judas was elected along 
with the rest : but they were elected by Him who saw 
the end from the beoinninor. Matthias was not elected 
with the rest, yet when he had shown himself worthy to 
be an apostle, he was appointed in the place of Judas. 
Hence it follows, also, that those now who walk in the 
vSaviour's commandments, living as perfect Gnostics ac- 
cording to the gospel, shall be enrolled among the apostles. 
He is truly a presbyter of the church, and he is a true 
deacon or servant of the will of God, who does and 
teaches what God has commanded, and not he who has 
been ordained hy the imposition of hands : neither is a 
presbyter counted a righteous man, because he is a pres- 
byter, but a righteous man, because he is a righteous man, 
is enrolled in the true presbytery : and though upon earth 
he be not honoured with sitting in the first throne, yet he 
shall sit on those four and twenty thrones judging the peo- 
ple, as John speaks in the Revelation. There is only one 
covenant of salvation, coming down from the creation of 



ON AP0ST0I4CAL SUCCESSION. 115 

the world, through different ages and generations, in various 
modes of administration. It follows, therefore, that there 
is only one unchangeable salvation, given by one and the 
same God, and applied by one and the same Lord, (Jesus 
Christ,) according to different dispensations. For which 
cause the middle wall that separated the Jews from the 
Gentiles has been taken away, that so of twain he might 
make one peculiar people ; and that they both mig'ht come 
to a unity of faith ; both have one and the same election. 
And of the elect, whether Jews or Gentiles, those are 
more particularly so, who, according to this perfect know- 
ledge, have been gathered from the church on earth, and 
honoured with the ui iignificent glory of sitting on the four 
and twenty throne , ns judges and administrators, in that 
assembly where the grace of time is crowned with a double 
increase. For even in the church here on earth, there 
are promotions of bishops, of presbyters, and of deacons ; 
which are, I suppose, imitations of angelic glory, and of 
that state which aw^aits those v/ho walk in the footsteps 
of the apostles, and in the perfect righteousness of the 
gospel. These, the apostle tells us, being received up 
into the clouds, shall first be engaged in suitable ser\'ices, 
and then advanced to the presbytery, according to the pro- 
motion of glory, (for glory differs from glory,) until they 
grow to a perfect man." 

We have given the wdiole of this passage that the reader 
may judge for himself. FiTst, then, it is plain that Clemens 
set a comparatively light estimate upon ordination by im- 
position of hands, if separate from true piety. Secondly, 
he says he supposes that the " promotions of bishops, of 
presbyters, and of deacons, are imitations of angelic glory;" 
by w^hich he appears only to mean heavenly glory in general. 
He never mentions different orders of angels in the pas- 
sage : the wKiter of the Revelation to whom he refers 
never uses the word archangel, or orders of angels. 
Thirdly, as to this angelic or heavenly glory, he explains 
himself by speaking of the four and twenty elders (pres- 
byters) as the summit of it — the highest perfection of that 
glory, that indeed in which the apostles are found. No 
higher place is assigned in the Scriptures to the apostles 
themselves, than to sit on twelve thrones, judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel. Matt, xix, 28. And he makes 



116 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

being "like angels," being "like the apostles." He 
speaks of his " perfect man," being " enrolled among the 
apostles," and explicates his meaning by going on to show, 
that though he should not on earth be "honoured with 
sitting in a first throne, yet he shall sit in the presbytery 
of those four and Ivoenty thrones^ judging the people :" the 
apostles, therefore, according to Clemens, sit on such 
thrones. They belong to that presbytery. That pres- 
bytery is the mansion of holiness for the perfect man. 
Here is no place for the bishop over this presbytery, 
without placing him over the apostles themselves. With 
Clemens, then, nothing belonging to the church, either in 
heaven or on earth, is higher than a true presbyter. We 
hope multitudes of good bishops will be there : but, if 
Clemens be right, it will be their highest glory to be per- 

fect PRESBYTERS. 

But Clemens has a passage in the beginning of the 
seventh book of the same work, in which he clearly main- 
tains the identity of bishops and presbyters. Speaking of 
the public worship of God, in opposition or contrast to 
mental worship, he says, " One part of it is performed by 
superior ministers, another part by inferior ministers. The 
superior part is performed by presbyters ; the inferior, or 
servile part, by the deacons.^'' Here bishops are included 
in the presbyters, that is, they are one and the same order 
and office. This is another important testimony against 
high Church episcopacy. 

Origen flourished about A. D. 230. All he says is con- 
formable to the statement of Jerome, viz., that presbyters 
and bishops are substantially the same order ; the circum- 
stantial difference is, that one presbyter was set over the 
rest, and distinguished by the denomination of bishop. If 
we show this substantial identity, it will follow, of course, 
that the difference is only circumstantial. Let us hear 
Origen : " Dost thou think that they who are honoured 
with the priesthood, and glory in their priestly order, walk 
according to that order ? In like manner, dost thou suppose 
the deacons also walk according to tJieir order ? Whence 
then is it that we often hear reviling men exclaim, ' What a 
bishop !' ' What a presbyter !' or, ' What a deacon is this 
fellow !' Do not these things arise from hence, that the 
priest or the deacon, had, in some thing, gone contrary to 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 117 

his order, and had done something against the priestly, or 
the Levitical order ?"* Here is the priesthood and priestly 
order, and the Lexntical order : the bishop and presbyter are 
EQUALLY put into iYiQ first, that is, the priesthood, or priestly 
order ; and deacons are noticed in the place or order of 
the Levites. The bishops and presbyters are spoken of 
as one and the same order. In another part, speaking of 
the queen of Sheba admiring the order of Solomon's ser- 
vants, Origen's lively imagination supposes that Solomon's 
household typified the church of God ; and Solomon's ser- 
vants, the ministers of the church : — " Imagine the ecclesi- 
astical ORDER, SITTING in the seats or chairs oi bishops and 
presbyters. She saw also the array of servants standhig to 
wait in their service. This (as it seems to^me) speaks of 
the order of desicons sta7iding to attend on divine service."! 
Here one and the same ecclesiastical 07^der includes both 
bishops and presbyters. Again: '* What will it profit me 
to sit in a higher chair, if my works are not answerable 
to my dignity ?"J This is his mode of representing the 
circumstantial difference of a bishop, occupying the dignity 
of a " higher chair, ^^ in sitting, with his co-presbyters, to 
preside over the church. For he says the presbyters pre- 
side over the church too. Thus, addressing his hearers in 
Hom. 7, on Jeremiah, he says, " We, of the clerical or- 
DER, who PRESIDE oi)er youP Now everyone knows that 
Origen was never any thing more than a presbyter. 
Speaking in another place of the ambition of some persons 
to be great in the church, he says, " They first desire to 
be deacons, but not such as the Scripture describes, but 
such as devour widows' houses, and for pretence make 
long prayers, and therefore shall receive a heavier judg- 
ment. Such deacons consequently will go about to seize 
the HIGH chairs of presbyters — prim as cathcBdras. Some 
also, not content with that, attempt more, in order that they 
may be called bishops, that is, rabbi ; but they ought to 
understand that a bishop must be blameless, and have the 
rest of the qualities described there, (Titus i, 6, &c.,) so that 
though men should not give such a one the name of bishop, 
yet he will be a bishop before God.''^ This is the general 
style of Origen on this subject, and the substance of what 

* Horn. 2, in Num. f Hom. 3, in Cant. 

X Horn. 6, in Ezek. <^ Tract. 34, in Matt. 23. 



118 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

occurs in his Works, on the matter. It is clear enough 
that Jerome has given us the sense of Grig en, as well as 
of the rest of the ancients. He was perfectly acquainted 
with Origen's opinion, and translated many of his works. 
Bishops and presbyters, ivith Origen, were the same ordei^ ; 
they RULED the church in common, the presbyters pre- 
siding with the bishop ; he having a higher chair, and 
being distinguished by the name of bishop. 

Cyprian flourished about K. D. 250. He was a great 
and good man, and nobly sealed the truth witli his blood 
as a martyr of Christ. However, he certainly had some- 
what inflated views of the dignity of a bishop, and is con- 
sidered to be as high as any of the primitive fathers in his 
notions on the subject. Yet they amount to no more than 
Jerome's statement. Let the man that says they do, pro- 
duce the proof. As high language may be produced from 
Jerome as any used by Cyprian ; yet Jerome expressly 
tells us his sober view w^as, that, by divine right, bishops 
and presbyters were the same. The language, therefore, 
that Cyprian uses, is to be interpreted as consistent with 
this identity of bishops and presbyters. It is of much im- 
portance to keep this in mind. Another thing may assist 
the reader's judgment here. He has seen the levelling 
views of Tertullian. Now it is well known that Cyprian 
was so PASSIONATE an admirer of Tertullian as never to let a 
DAY pass v/ithout reading some part of his writings ; and his 
language, in calling for his Works to be brought him regu- 
larly for this purpose, was, " Da magistrum — Give me the 
master.'^'' The admiring scholar must resemble his master. 
We shall see even under Cyprian, that the church was 
ruled in common by the bishops and presbyters. Cyprian 
did not suppose he ought to do any thing of moment in 
his church without the council of his clergy. Writing to 
his presbyters and deacons, he says, " From the beginning 
of my episcopacy I determined to do nothing of my own 
accord, but only by your council, and with the consent of 
the people. When, by the grace of God, I return unto 
you, then we will, as our mutual honour requires, confer in 
common upon those things which have been done, or which- 
still remain to be done."* But he goes further than this. 
He shows his opinion that the presbyters had powers, by 

^ Ep. 6, ed. Pamel, 1589. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 119 

divine right, to perform any of a bishop's duties in his 
absence. In his seclusion from the rage of his persecu- 
tors, he writes to his presbyters and deacons, saying, " I 
beseech you, according to your faith and religion, that you 
perform your own duties, and also those helonging to me^ 
so that nothing may be wanting either as to discipline or 
diligence." Ep. 5. Again, having mentioned matters of 
church government : "I rely upon your love and your reli- 
gion, which I well know, and by these letters I exhort and 
COMMIT THE CHARGE to you, that you, whose presence 
does not expose you to such peril, would discharge my 
duty, act in my place, [vice mea,) and perform all those 
things which the administration of the church requires." 
Ep. 6. These passages are decisive in proof, that suh- 
stantially, the bishop and presbyter were in Cyprian's 
opinion the same. The presiding power of the clergy is 
very strongly put by him, when, in writing to Cornelius, 
bishop of Rome, he speaks of them as " compresbyters of 
Cornelius," Ep. 42 ; and " the most illustrious clergy 
PRESIDING WITH THE BISHOP ovcr the church.^^ Ep. 55. 
Again, as " the sacred and venerable consistory of his 
clergy. ^^ Ep. 55, p. 107. He applies the term prmpositus^ 
president, as well as pastor, to the presbyters and to the 
bishops in common. Ep. 10, 11, 23, and 62. Indeed, in Ep. 
20, he applies it to presbyters alone, as distinct from the 
bishop. Cyprian uses the term collega for a bishop, very 
frequently. The fourth council of Carthage, A. D. 398, 
thus speak on the subject : " As in the church, and in the 
concession of the presbyters, the bishop sits in a higher seat 
than the presbytery, so in other places let him know that 
he is truly a colleague, collega, of the presbyters : can. 35." 
This was in the very city in which Cyprian had been 
bishop. There were two hundred and fourteen bishops in 
the council, am.ong whom was the famous St. Augustine, at 
that time bishop of Hippo. This canon became imbodied 
in the canon law, and makes part of the law of the Ro- 
mish Church to this day. In his angry Epistle to Pupian, 
a bishop and confessor, when put upon the point of clear- 
ing himself from some charges of pride, haughtiness, &c., 
which Pupian had mentioned to him in a letter, he stands 
in the defence of the divine authority of his office in the 
church : he says the Lord strengthened this divine autho- 



120 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 

rity hy a revelation in a dream ; and he places it upon this, 
that he luas a priest, sacerdos. None of our high Churchmen 
deny that a presbyter is a priest, or sacerdos. The council 
of Carthage, in the canon just now mentioned, use the word 
sacer dotes for presbyters only, " Episcopus — collegam se sa-* 
cerdotum esse cognoscat — let the bishop know that he is the 
colleague of the priests or presbyters.''^ Such is the solemn 
determination of two hundred and fourteen bishops, the great 
Augustine among them. Cabassute, the learned Romish 
historian of the councils, says of this council, " Never 
were more excellent and comprehensive regulations made 
for church discipline than in this council ; so that its de- 
crees may be said to be a storehouse of instruction as to the 
regulation of the whole order of the clergy." Here, again, 
then, the bishop and presbyter are in substance the same. 
Indeed, according to Dr. Barrow's view of the following 
passage, Cyprian distinctly declares that, at the first, ''for 
a time^'' there were no bishops as now ; but that they were 
afterward^ and by human authority, constituted to take 
away schisms, exactly according to Jerome's statements. 
Cyprian says, " Heresies are sprung up, and schisms 
grown from no other root but this, because God's priest 
was not obeyed ; nor was there one priest or bishop /br a 
time in the church, nor a judge thought on for a time to 
supply the room of Christ." Ep. bb. " Where," says Dr. 
Barrow, "that by the church is meant any particular church, 
and by priest a bishop of such church, any one not be- 
witched with prejudice by the tenor of St. Cyprian's dis- 
course, will easily discover."* 

The Epistle on the Unity of the Church will develop 
the same thing. He explains and confirms his views by 
the case of the apostles. Peter, he thinks, had the first 
grant of the keys, though all had equal power. " After 
the resurrection, each and all of the other apostles had 
EQUAL power given to that of Peter." This, he supposes, 
gives a principle of unity ^ a kind oi headship, with equality 
of power among all. Having laid down his scheme in 
the apostles, he applies it to all ministers. "All are 
PASTORS, but the flock is only one, which was fed by all 
the apostles with unanimous consent^ He proceeds to 
point out the duty of keeping this unity in general, and 

* Barrow's Pope's Supremacy, p. 141, ed. 4to., 1680. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 121 

shows the importance of the bishops of different parts of 
the church acting on the same plan, in order to prevent 
the scheme of Novatus and others, who tried to gain over, 
and did gain over, some of the bishops to their side. This 
was good advice. Then '' all ministers are pastors," as 
really as all the apostles were apostles : and one person 
in each city or district having a kind of headship over 
others, for the sake of unity, perfectly consists with equal 
powers among all; as much so as that the apostles had 
all equal power, notwithstanding the headship of Peter. 
Whether Cyprian was right or wrong in his opinion about 
Peter's headship, makes no difference to our present argu- 
ment. We give his scheme merely to show Cyprian's 
views of the substantial identity of bishops and presbyters, 
with the shadow of a distinction between them in the head- 
ship of the bishop. The remark again easily suggests 
itself, that the same mode of arguing which our high 
Churchmen employ for their view of bishops, jure divino, 
is employed with equal plausibility by the Papists for the 
UNIVERSAL headship of the pope. Cyprian maintained 
the DIVINE RIGHT OF EQUALITY amoug all pastors, and 
that the difference was circumstantial and nonessential. 
The contrary tends to Popery. So the celebrated high 
Church Dodwell fairly pushes himself, on this very point 
in Cyprian, to this clear establishment of the popedom — 
" Christ, as the head of the church, is not sufficient to 
its unity, but there must be besides a visible head in the 
visible church."* Glorious new^s for Popery ! And all are 
doomed as schismatics to eternal damnation by Dodwell 
and the Oxford Tract-men who do not submit to this 
Popish dogma ! ! Cyprian, however, directs the people to 
forsake wicked ministers. lie says, " K people obedient 
to the Lord^s commands, and fearing God, ought to sepa- 
rate themselves from a wicked bishop, and not partake 
of the sacraments of a sacrilegious priest, seeing they 
chiefly have the power of electing worthy ministers, and 
of rejecting the unworthy." Ep. 68. 

Bishop Beveridge and the learned Dodwell have selected 
the following as the strongest passage in Cyprian for high 
Church episcopacy. If this can be shown to fail that 
scheme, then nothing in Cyprian will support it. As 

* Dodwelli Diss. Cyprian, No. 7, sec. 32. 
6 



122 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Cyprian is, perhaps, the highest in his notions on this 
subject of all the genuine fathers, it will conduce to the 
purpose of our argument to give this passage a thorough 
examination. The passage is in his " Epistle to the 
LAPSED, who themselves had written to Cyprian about the 
peace or reconciliation to the church, which Paul, the 
martyr, had given to them." The passage is as follows : — 
" Our Lord, (whose precepts we are obliged to reverence 
and observe,) when arranging matters that regard the 
honour of the bishop and the order of his church, thus 
speaks in the gospel, and says to Peter, ' I say unto thee, 
that thou art Peter, and upon'this rock will I build my 
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it : 
and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall 
be loosed in heaven.' Hence the ordination of bishops, 
and the arrangement of the church, have, through different 
times and successions, come down to the present, so that 
the church is placed upon the bishops : and all acts of 
the church are governed by these same presidents of the 
church. Seeing then this is established hy divine law, I 
marvel that certain persons" — these lapsers — " should have 
the temerity to Avrite to me in such a manner," — telling 
him, (Ep. 29,) that Ihey did not need his (Cyprian's) let- 
ters of peace, since Paul, the martyr, had given them 
such letters ; — " seeing," says Cyprian, '' the church is 
constituted of the bishop, the clergy, and of all the faithful 
of the people. Far be it indeed from the truth of the case, 
and from the long-suffering of God, that the church should 
consist in the number of the lapsed." 

Here then let us, first, explain the case of the lapsed ; 
secondly, the laws of church government in Cyprian's 
time, on this and similar matters. 

First, the lapsed. These were persons who had fallen 
from their faith in the persecution. They were eager to 
be admitted to the peace of the church, before they had 
given those proofs of their recovery from their fall which 
were then generally judged necessary in such cases. 
Some of the martyrs, (persons who had survived their 
sufferings in the persecution,) from the honours they had 
gained by their constancy, had obtained great influence in 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. r2a 

the church, and had, though only laymen, given letters of 
peace to the lapsed, without the concurrence of the bishop 
and of the clergy in general. Some few of the presbyters 
had acted in the same disorderly manner, " contemning 
the bishop and arrogating the whole authority in this 
matter to themselves." Ep. 10. 

Secondly, let us explain the laws of church govern- 
ment, in Cyprian's time, on this and similar matters. 
Cyprian then himself, in numberless places, states that 
these laws required the mutual concurrence of the bishop, 
the presbyters, the deacons, and of all the faithful of the 
church : so that he could not, " durst not^'' he says, do any 
thing of importance without them : of course, no indivi- 
duals, as a parly, could do any thing without him and the 
other clergy with him. This law he expressly and re- 
peatedly applies to such cases as ordaining readers, dea- 
cons, &c., and he expressly applies it to this case of 
reconciling the lapsed. In this act the bishop and the 
clergy both equally laid their hands upon the lapsed in 
restoring them to the peace of the church — " manu eis ah 
episcopo ET CLERO impositar Ep, 10. 

The question in dispute, then, was not between the 
bishop and the presbyters ; nothing of the kind : but be- 
tween the bishop, with the clergy in general on one side, 
and a faction in the church on the other. Cyprian claims 
no sole powers for the bishop. He repeatedly acknow- 
ledges that the power and authority of the bishop was so 
LIMITED, that he could do nothing of importance of him- 
self. His office was to convene the church, and preside 
over, or superintend, the acts of the church : " all acts of 
the church are governed by these presidents." He was, 
then, nothing more, by Cyprian's own account, than a 
limited superintendient, unable to do any thing of general 
importance alone ; but whose office it was to superintend all 
the affairs and proceedings of the church, whether those pro- 
ceedings luere by the ministers or the people, separately or 
conjointly. Presbyters could, in an emergency, exercise 
all the powers of this office ; for so Cyprian himself re- 
quests and commands them to perform all things in his 
office that belonged to the government of the church. This 
superintendency Cyprian (though his meaning is not clear) 
seems to think is established by divine law : his ptoofil ar6, 



124 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the authority given to Peter, the ordinations of bishops, 
the arrangements of the church, and the successions of 
bishops to each other. Sometimes, however, he seems to 
have doubted this point, viz., that this superintendency 
was established by divine law : for in the passage above 
given from him by Dr. Barrow, he says there was no such 
president or judge for a time in the church, and that this 
was the cause of the heresies that arose for want of it. 
But Cyprian is very expert at using divine authority. He 
pleads his ^' night visions — nocturnas visiones^^ — ^for this. 
Ep. 10. He styles the election of Cornelius by the clergy 
and people, "the judgment of God and of Christ." Ep. 46 
and 52. This is frequently his way of answering his ad- 
versaries on disputed points. So in some disputed ordina- 
tions, Ep. 55 : and similar things in many other places, he 
thus makes them to be by divine authority. For Cyprian 
to plead THIS kind of divine authority for this superintend- 
ency, amounts to little ; and such certainly appears to be 
his style of reasoning in the passage in dispute. This 
limited superintendency, then, is Cyprian's episcopacy ; 
and such is the divine right which he pleads for this 
limited superintendency. This is the very utmost that the 
strongest passage in Cyprian, himself the strongest advo- 
cate in antiquity, can prove. Does this, then, establish 
high Church episcopacy ? Cyprian, who was the arch- 
bishop of that part of Africa — yea, Cyprian durst not, could 
not, do any thing of importance without consulting his 
presbyters and deacons ; and frequently the people also : 
his presbyters in his absence, when need required, could 
perform all that belonged to his office without him. Will 
this superintendency satisfy a high Church bishop ? no, 
verily, nor a low Church bishop either. When it was 
proposed at the conference, at Worcester House, about the 
king's (Charles H.) declaration, that "the bishops should 
exercise their church power with the counsel and consent 
of presbyter s,^^ Bishop Cosins (one of the most learned 
bishops in the canons, councils, and fathers) presently 
replied, " If your majesty grants this, you will unbishop 
your bishops.^' See p. 48 of this Essay. 

FiRMiLiAN, bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, was very 
celebrated in his day. He was contemporary with Cyprian. 
A very long letter of his is found in Cyprian's Works. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 125 

He says, " All power and grace is in the church, in which 
PRESBYTERS PRESIDE, and havc the power of baptizing, 
confirming, and ohdaining. Omnis potestas et gratia in 
ecclesia constituta sit, uhi president majores natu, qui 
et haptizandi, et manum imponendi et ordinandi, possident 
POTESTATEM." TMs is every way a decisive testimony. 
The manner in which he puts it, shows that he had not a 
suspicion that the assertion had any thing in it contrary to 
Cyprian's views. Had Cyprian believed in the divine 
right of the order of bishops^ as possessing the sole power 
and AUTHORITY of ordination and confirmation, he 
would necessarily have opposed the doctrine of Firmilian 
as a dangerous heresy. He did not. The consequence 
is plain : he did not hold such a view of the divine right 
of bishops. 

The decisive language of Firmilian gives a proper key 
to Cyprian. The letter of Firmilian has the most perfect 
authenticity. Firmilian is equal, or even superior authority 
to Cyprian himself. Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., 1. 6, c. 26) 
says, " he was very famous^ '' He made," says Howel, 
" A MUCH MORE Considerable figure in the church at that 
time than the bishop of Rome. Firmilian was president 
of this council^'' that is., the council of Antioch.* Firmilian's 
testimony is as high and as decided as language can make 
it. And it does not speak of isolated facts, but of the 
PRACTICE of the church. It w^as the practice then for 
presbyters to preside over the church, to confirm, and to 
ORDAIN. Suppose this chiefly to have been confined to 
the country of Firmilian, that is, to Asia Minor ; this is 
abundantly enough. Firmilian was known over the whole 
Christian world. The practice was never condemned; 
the ordinations were never objected to. This case is 
worth a thousand single instances of ordination ; for such 
a matter could not be established as practice, and then con- 
tinued as practice, in the most celebrated part of the 
Christian world at that time, without resulting in the ordi- 
7iation of thousands of ministers. 

We have now gone through all the principal writers that 

speak on the subjects in question, during the first three 

centuries ; and we see that their authority utterly fails 

to maintain the views of our high Church divines on the 

* Howel' s Pontificate, p. 24. 



126 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

order of bishops and apostolical succession ; and estab- 
lishes the contrary. 

A few observations on some of the later fathers shall 
close this section. 

Athanasius flourished A. D. 350. Some writers on 
episcopacy quote an Epistle of his to a monk named Dra- 
contius, in favour of bishops by divine right, as an order 
with powers incompatible with the office of presbyters. 
Here is the usual fallacy of such writers, in presuming that 
any mention of bishops always means such an order of 
bishops as tins. Indeed they must write upon this fallacy, 
or they must drop their pens. But this is begging the 
question, and proves nothing. Now in this Epistle of 
Athanasius there is not a syllable about the difference 
between bishops and presbyters. The substance of the 
whole is this — Whether a monk, who was a layman, 
should enter the Christian ministry and brave the dangers 
that then threatened all in that office ; or whether he 
should, coward like, shun those dangers by remaining in 
the desert and in the cell. Athanasius presses the argu- 
ment that to despise this ministry, there spoken of as to a 
bishop, was to despise the ordinance of Christ. Very 
true. We all believe .this. But what does it prove as to 
the question before us ? just nothing. Such are the best 
of their attempts at proving their scheme from the fathers 
of any age, either early or late. We shall not swell this 
volume by a lengthened exposure of them. The case of 
Ischyras's ordination, mentioned by Athanasius, is not de- 
cisive for either side of the argument ; though a thorough 
examination of it would perhaps be decidedly against the 
high Church scheme.* 

Ambrose flourished about A. D. 370. A commentar^^ 
on St. Paul's Epistles, published in his Works, is some- 
times supposed to have been the work of Hilary, a dea- 
con of Rome. Divines generally seem to admit its worth 
and weight to be equal, whether it be ascribed to Ambrose 
or Hilary. The deacons of that day had risen greatly in 
the principal churches, and had become eminent. The 
cause was this : the deacons had the principal manage- 
ment of the goods of the church. The churches had 
become very rich, even before Constantine's time The 
* See Stillingfleet's Irenicum, pp. 381. 382 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 127 

number of deacons was limited to seven, in the church of 
Rome ; and this while the presbyters amounted to more 
than seven times seven. The deacons, therefore, had 
much power and influence. Some of them were among 
the most able and learned men of the age. Athanasius 
was only a deacon, while he was one of the most celebrated 
champions for the faith in the great council of Nice. Am- 
brose then, or Hilary, says, " After churches were con- 
stituted in every place, and officers appointed, things 
BEGAN to be arranged differently from what they were 
in the beginning ; for, at the first, all taught, and all bap- 
tized. But if all had continued to be allowed to perform 
the same things, it would have been absurd, and the min- 
istry would have become vile and contemptible. The 
apostles' writings are not altogether agreeable to the order 
of things as now practised in the church. For Timothy, 
who was ordained a presbyter by Paul, he calls a bishop ; 
because the first or chief presbyters, were called bishops. 
His words are, '' Primi presbyteri episcopi appellatantur T"^ 
First or chief presbyters were called bishops; and, 
as one departed, the next succeeded to the ojfice. But 
because the next in succession were sometimes found 
unworthy to hold the primacy, the custom was changed 
by the provision of a council ; so that not the next in order, 
but the next in merit, should be made bishop, and consti- 
tuted such BY the judgment of a number of the presby- 
ters, lest an unworthy person should usurp, and become 
a general scandal."! " The presbyter and bishop had one 
and the same ordination. The bishop is the chief among 
the presbyters — Episcopus est quiinter presbyter os primus PX 
Here it is plainly stated that the usages of the church, in 
his day, were different from what they w^ere in the apos- 
tles' time ; and therefore they could only be of human 
authority, and not of divine right. The presbyters and 
bishops, he says, had " one and the same ordination." 

* Mr. Sinclair (p. 90) chooses to display some wit, and to show his 
knowledge, by declaring that " a prime presbyter, as presiding in the 
college of presbyters," is an " invention of the modern followers of Ae- 
rius" — that " this poetic personage, this creature of the dissenting ima- 
gination, was created by David Blondel." Mr. Sinclair, of course, talks 
by hearsay about Ambrose, otherwise his wit would have been spoiled, 
and his learning improved. 

t Com. in Ephes. cap. 4. % Cora, in 1 Tim. iii. 



128 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

The consecration of bishops, as now used, has no Scrip- 
tural authority : it is merely a ceremony. Then he pro- 
ceeds to say, that a presidency became established. This, 
at the jirst^ took place by mere seniority, and one was 
CONSTITUTED BISHOP BY the judgment of the other pres- 
byters : the PRESBYTERS MADE the BISHOP ; and this pre- 
cedence was given to one presbyter as bishop, for the 
honour of the church and the ministry, and not by any 
divine right. Indeed, he says, it was different from apos- 
tolic usage. 

We may here introduce the matter of Aerius. I con- 
sider it of little importance ; and the opinion of Epiphani- 
us about it is much of the same value. Stillingfleet says, 
" I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment 
will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, 
Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophilact, were all 
of Aerius's judgment as to the identity of both name and 
order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church ; 
but here lay the difference : Aerius from thence proceeded 
te separation from the bishops and their churches, because 
they were bishops."* But then, say the advocates of 
episcopacy, Epiphanius wrote against his opinion, and 
numbered Aerius among heretics because of it. As to 
Aerius's views, we have heard Stillingfleet's opinion. 
They who say he was accounted a heretic solely for main- 
taining that bishops and presbyters were, according to the 
Scriptures, the sa?ne, do not know what they say. Who 
maintained this more boldly than Jerome ? But neither 
Epiphanius, who was a friend of Jerome's, nor any other 
person, ever counted Jerome a heretic on this account. 
Augustine says, "Aerius maintained that a bishop could not 
ordain. He opposed the existence of the distinction be- 
tween a bishop and presbyter ; he rejected it ; he also 
fell into the heresy of the Arians, &c.t And as to Epi- 
phanius, Avhatever he was besides, he was a hot-headed, 
meddling bigot. He quarrelled with John, bishop of Jerusa- 
lem ; and ordained in John's diocess without his leave. 
He collected a council in Cyprus to condemn Origen's 
Works, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same thing. 
Chrysostom refused. Epiphanius had the temerity to 
enter Constantinople, Chrysostom's see, in order to cause 

* Iren., p. 276. f Vid. Angustini de Heresibus, No. 53. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 129 

the decree of Cyprus against Origan to be put in execution 
there. Before he entered the city, he ordained a deacon in 
one of Chrysostom's churches. He refused to hold com- 
munion with Chrysostom himself; threatened that he would, 
publicly, in the church, at Constantinople, with a loud voice, 
condemn Origen, and all who defended him. He came 
to the church, but being warned by Chrysostom that he 
might expose himself to danger from the people, he desisted. 
He tried to persuade the empress that God would spare the 
life of her son, (who was then dangerously ill,) if she 
would only persecute the defenders of Origen. He de- 
fended praying for the dead : Aerius opposed it. So he 
put x^erius into the list of heretics. Bishop Taylor him- 
self says, ' He that considers the catalogues [of heresies] 
as they are collected- by Epiphanius, &c., shall find that 
many are reckoned for heretics for opinions in matters 
disputable, and undetermined, and of no consequence ; and 
that in these catalooues of heretics there are men num- 
bered for heretics, which by every side respectively are 
acquitted, so that there is no company of men in the world 
that admit these catalogues as good records, or sufficient 
sentences of condemnation.' "* And Dr. Cave, an unex- 
ceptionable authority with high Churchmen, says, "He 
[Epiphanius] was one of no great judgment and reasoning; 
he generally took his account of things upon trust, suffer- 
ing himself to be imposed upon by those narratives which 
the several parties had published of the proceedings, 
either of their own or of their adversaries' side, without due 
search and examination, which ran him upon infinite mis- 
takes, inconsistencies, and confusions. ''''^ 

Chrysostom, who flourished A. D. 400, says, " Paul, 
speaking about bishops and their ordination, what they 
ought to possess, and from what they must abstain, having 
omitted [1 Tim. iii] the order of presbyters, he passes on 
to that of deacons. Why so, I ask? because the differ- 
ence between the bishop and the presbyter is almost no- 
thing. For the presidency of the churches is committed 
to presbyters, and the qualifications which the apostle 
requires in a bishop, he requires in a presbyter also ; being 
above them solely by their ordination, and this is the 

* Lib. of Prophes., sec. 2. Dupin, Biblioth Patrum. cent. 4th. 
f Dr. John Edwards' Pratrologia, p. 53, ed. 1731, 8vo. 



130 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ONLY thing they, the bishops, seem to have more than 
presbyters."* This last remark refers to what is supposed 
to be the sheet anchor of episcopacy, in the modern sense, 
that is, the power of ordination.^ Chrysostom says they 
were the same in every thing else. Even as to ordination 
he only mentions the fact of the difference, and not the 
divine right. And as to the fact, his language is by no 
means decided. Jerome also himself has a remark of a 
similar kind in his Epistle to Evagrius : '' What does the 
bishop which the presbyter may not do, except ordination ?" 
The interpretation of the one may be sufficient for the in- 
terpretation of the other. Jerome, then, it should be 
remembered, does, in that Epistle, most plainly declare that 
bishops and presbyters are the same. He then says, that 
" after the apostles' times, one preshyter was placed over 
the rest as a remedy against sckis?n. For at Alexandria, 
from the evangelist Mark up to Heraclas and Dionysius, 
the bishops, (about A. D. 250) the presbyters always 
ELECTED one from among themselves, and placed him in the 
higher chair, and they, the presbyters, gave him the name 
of bishop ; in the same manner as an army may make its 
general ; or as deacons elect one of themselves v/hose in- 
dustry they know, and call him archdeacon. For what 
does a bishop do," (that is, now he means about A. D. 400,) 
" except ordination, which a presbyter may not do ?" Here 
then, it is evident, that Jerome speaks simply of the fact 
and custom which had then, mhis day, become established, 
as to what bishops do, and presbyters may not do ; not of 

* Com. in 1 Tim. iii. 

t There is a radical absurdity at the hottom of all these mighty pre- 
tensions about the power of ordination. It is as plain as that two and 
two make four, that the greater always includes the less. Now the 
two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper are the greatest ritual 
ordinances in the Christian church. A sacrament is, by all divines, 
considered above all other ritual ordinances. Ordination is not a sa- 
crament. It is therefore less than a sacrament. He that has power 
and authority to perform the greater, has power and authority to per- 
form the less. All presbyters, by the confession of our opponents, have 
power and authority to administer the sacraments of baptism and the 
Lord's supper, the greater : all presbyters, therefore, have power and 
authority to administer ordinution, the less. This, to a reasonable mind, 
would settle the whole question ; but as the prejudices of some people 
are so strong as to take away the force of clear reason, we have met 
the opponents on their own ground. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 131 

the poiver or right of presbyters, or that they could not by 
divine right do what the bishops did. This custom, or 
ecclesiastical arrangement, which, for the honour of the 
bishop and the church, made ordination generally a prero- 
gative of the bishop's office, Jerome advises the presbytery 
to comply with. Therefore " they may not,^^ because of 
this custom, especially without the bishop's license, or- 
dain. Any other supposition would make Jerome contra- 
dict, in the same page, what he had most firmly maintain- 
ed. His illustrations show the same. The custom of the 
church at x\lexandria was evidently intended by him as an 
example of ordination hy presbyters ; else Avhy mention it 
as something which had ceased, in his day, to be common. 
T\\e presbyters, at Alexandria, prior to A. D. 250, elected 
one of themselves, placed him in the chair, [all the conse- 
cration he had) — and gave him his title of bishop. It is 
trifling to say, as Episcopalians do, ' Perhaps there were 
bishops present who laid on hands and consecrated him.' 
This is little short of contradicting Jerome. He certainly 
makes the presbyters the doers of all that was done in 
making the bishop. The case of the army making its ge- 
neral is another instance which he mentions in illustration 
of his position. Every schoolboy knows that the Roman 
army in those days frequently created their generals by 
acclamation; audit is to these proceedings Jerome alludes : 
the laiofulness of the thing was no more necessary to his 
argument, than the lawfulness of the unjust steward's conduct 
to our Lords argument. It is the fact, and its bearing, which 
are important. The deacons, too, then appointed one of 
themselves as their head, calling him archdxacon ; so the 
presbyters make a presbyter their head, and call him bishop. 
The army made the general ; the deacons the archdea- 
cons ; and the presbyters made the bishop. This is 
plainly the sense. Presbyters, then, ordained even 
bishops, in the see of Alexandria, from the time of St. 
Mark up to Heraclas and Dionysius, that is, for about the 
first tvv^o hundred years after Christ. What need be clearer,- 
than that Jerome's exception only regards the custom of 
the church in his day, (about one hundred and fifty years 
after what he refers to at Alexandria,) and not the power 
or right of the presbyters to ordain. Stillingfleet has 
moreover quoted, in confirmation of this view, the testi- 



132 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

mony of Eutychius, the patriarch of Alexandria, who 
expressly affirms, " that the twelve presbyters constituted 
by Mark, upon the vacancy of the see did choose of their 
number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven 
did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and made 
him patriarch," or bishop.* The manner it seems varied, 
the thing was the same. There never was any universally 
established manner of making bishops in the Christian 
church, excepting the Scriptural one, by which every man 
is made a minister and a bishop at once, by one and the 
same ordination. Chrysostom's language is similar to Je- 
rome's, and admits the same interpretation. He positively 
says, that the bishop had then nothing above presbyters 
but ordination ; and speaks douhtingly as to this : " This 
[ordination] is the only thing they seem to have more than 
presbyters." But even were he to speak with the utmost 
certainty, his language only states the fact and not the 
law. It was the fact, I believe, generally, in Chrysostom's 
days, for the honour of the bishop and the church, and (as 
they supposed) to prevent divisions, that bishops only or- 
dained bishops. This is perfectly consistent with all we 
have said to show the identity of bishops and presbyters 
by divine right. However, Calderwood, Alt. Damascen. 
p. 160, shows that a more accurate translation of Chrysos- 
tom's language will give a'very different view of his mean- 
ing : the latter member of his sentence, correctly translated, 
being as follows : — " The bishop being above the pres- 
byter solely by their" (the presbyters') " suffrage ; and by 
this alone they seem to assume an unjust superiority over 
the presbyters." This proves that Chrysostom considered 
bishops and presbyters to be really and by divine right the 
same in all things, and taxes the bishops with abusing the 
power given them by the suffrage of the presbyters, inju- 
riously to depress those very presbyters. 

The questions on the Old and New. Testament, found 
in the Works of St. Augustine, are mostly quoted as his by 
Episcopal writers : they could not find fault with me, 
therefore, if I claim their authority as his authority. 
However, it is supposed they were written by a more an- 
cient author than Augustine. In quest. 101, while rebuking 
some deacons who put themselves before the presbyters, 

* Stillingfleet's Iren., p. 274. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 133 

he says, " The superior order contains the inferior ; for a 
presbyter may perform the office of a deacon, an exorcist, 
or a reader. By a presbyter you must understand a bishop ; 
as Paul the apostle proves, when instructing Timothy, 
whom he ordained a presbyter, what sort of a person he 
ought to be whom he was to ordain a bishop. For what 
iis a bishop but the first presbyter, that is, the highest 
priest ? Finally, he addresses such as fellow-presbyters, 
fellow-priests. But does the bishop ever address the dea- 
cons as fellow-deacons 1 No indeed ; and the reason is 
because they are so much inferior. — For in Alexandria, 
and through the whole of Egypt, the presbyter consecrates 
[that is, confirms] when the bishop is not present." Here 
Timothy is a presbyter ; he as a presbyter ordains bish- 
ops. St. Paul is said to mean a bishop when he speaks 
of a presbyter : and presbyters also perform confirmation, 
in the bishop's absence, " through the whole of Egypt. "^^ 

That presbyters both possessed and exercised the right 
of ordaining ministers in the primitive church, appears 
moreover by the thirteenth canon of the council of Ancyra, 
A, D. 315 :• — " 'Tis not allowed to village bishops to or- 
dain presbyters or deacons ; nor is it allowed even to 
CITY presbyters to do this in another diocess without 
the license of the bishop.''^ High Church Episcopalians 
declare they cannot understand this canon ! It must be 
imperfect, or corrupt, or I know not what. So Socinians 
treat the Scriptures when they are plainly opposed to their 
schemes. However, no man who understands the Greek 
text of the canon will deny that the above is a fair translation. 
Here, then, in the first place, the chor-episcopi, or country 
bishops, are utterly forbid to ordain, and are evidently 
treated as inferior to city presbyters. Now Bishop 
Taylor, and many other learned Episcopalians, y^/Zy admit 
that these chor-episcopi, or village bishops, had, by divine 
right, the power to ordain. Therefore the power of the 
city presbyter to ordain presbyters and deacons, is 
clearly supposed in the canon ; and is not talten away, but 
only limited in its exercise. He was not to ordain " in 
another bishop's diocess without his license ;" very proper : 
but then it is as clear as though the canon had said so, 
that the city presbyter might and did ordain presbyters 
and deacons in the diocess of his own bishop ; and might 



134 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

do the same in any other diocess hy the license of the 
bishop of that diocess. It seems they had been guiUy of 
the irregularity referred to in the canon. However, there 
is no hmitation as to the diocess where they reside ; 
though the rules of order would require such things to be 
done with the consent of the bishop. Here, then, is 
another triumphant proof of the power of presbyters to 
ordain. 

There is considerable evidence arising to the same point 
from the illustrious council of Nice, A. D. 325, which 
condemned Arianism, and so greatly promoted the estab- 
lishment of the orthodox faith on the doctrine of the 
Trinity. A bishop, they say, was to be constituted by 
bishops. But in their Epistle to the church of Alexandria, 
and the- other churches of Egypt, they seem to speak of 
presbyters as still frequently ordaining presbyters. They 
are speaking of the clergy who had not gone away in the 
division with Miletius. Their words are : — " But as for 
those who, by the grace of God, and your prayers, have 
been found in no schism, but have ever remained imma- 
culate in the Catholic Church, it pleased the holy synod 
that they should have power to ordain, and give up the 
names of such as were worthy to be the clergy ; and in 
short, to do all thinors accordinsr to the ecclesiastical law 
and sanction."* The synod took away this power from 
all the Miletian clergy who had made division ; but as to 
those of the clergy of Alexandria, and the other churches 
of Egypt, who had not, they allowed their power of ordain- 
ing, &c., to REMAIN. Yalesius thinks Christophorson is 
mistaken in applying this passage to presbyters ; but Vale- 
sius's reasons do not invalidate Christophorson's view. 
For even as to those from whom this power of ordaining 
was taken away, the Epistle says, they were to " continue 
possessed of their dignity and office, but yet they were 
to acknowledge themselves always inferior to all those 
that had been approved of in every diocess and church, 
and who had been ordained before by our dearest colleague 
in the sacred function, Alexander." Now how could 
BISHOPS retain their honour and ojffice, in the same diocess, 
while other bishops over them had the sole honour and 
office of bishops in those diocesses ? Tbis is absurd. It 
* Socrat. Eccles. Hist., lib. 1, c. 9. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 135 

remains, therefore, that they spake of presbyters. These 
presbyters, their language shows, both possessed and exer- 
cised the povoer of ordaining presbyters and deacons; 
though at that time they direct that bishops should ordain 
bishops. 

The regulations about ordination in the Christian church 
appear to have been chiefly derived from the regulations 
of the Jewish synagogue. To make this plain, we will 
here repeat the statement of those Jewish regulations as 
given by Maimonides, and will add a few remarks upon 
them. " In ancient times," says he, (that is, the times be- 
fore Hillel the elder, Avho died about ten years after the 
birth of Christ,) " every one who was ordained himself, 
ordained his scholars. But the wise men, in order to 
show particular reverence for Hillel the elder, made a rule 
that no one should be ordained without the permission of 
the president, neither should the president ordain any one 
without the presence of the father of the sanhedrim, nor 
the father without the presence of the president. But, as 
to other members of the sanhedrim, any one might ordain, 
(having obtained permission of the president,) by joining 
with himself two others ; for ordination cannot regularly 
be performed except three join in the ordination."* " In 
the ancient times" of the church, " any one who was 
ordained himself, ordained others :" the presbyters ordained 
Timothy, and each church " was ruled by the presbyters 
in common." Then, probably, about the middle of the 
second century, one presbyter was elected by the rest 
to preside in the presbytery, and over the general acts 
of the church. This presiding presbyter was, -for dis- 
tinction's sake, called bishop : a term which up to that 
time had been common to all the presbyters, but which 
henceforward became appropriated to this presiding pres- 
byter. For the honour of this bishop, or president, ^* a 
rule was made that no one should be ordained without his 
permission," neither could he regularly ordain without the 
permission of the presbyters, as is most clearly proved by 
many examples in Cyprian himself, who apologized for 
ordaining a reader or subdeacon without their permission, 
even at the time when the rage of his enemies made it 
unsafe for him personally to consult them. With the per- 

* Vid. Selden De Synecl, lib. 2, c. vii, p. 173, 4-to. Amstel., 1679. 



136 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

mission of the bishop, however, the presbyters continued 
to ordain, as occasion required, for the first three hundred 
years : see the proof of this in the language of Firrailian, 
the celebrated bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, and the 
decisions of the councils of Ancyra and Nice, in the pre- 
ceding pages. At Alexandria, it seems that the custom 
for the presbyters there to ordain their president or bishop 
continued until A. D. 250, as Jerome testifies. But the 
power and authority of the bishops gradually increased by 
their uniting to support each other ; by the pride and am- 
bition of many of them, (for the fathers themselves give 
abundant evidence of this,) and by their pleas that sub- 
mission to their authority was essential to prevent schisms, 
and to the peace of the church. They ventured at length 
in the council of Nice, not indeed to prohibit presbyters 
from ordaining presbyters ; but to make a law that bishops 
ALONE should ordain bishops. Of course, as the council 
was principally made up of bishops, there would not be 
any opposition. Yet Ambrose expressly declares that the 
bishops and presbyters had " one ordination," that is, really 
such ; as the consecration of bishops is only a ceremony. 
Such is the origin, and such is the history of episcopal 
ordinations. Presbyters still unite with bishops in ordain- 
ing presbyters in the Church of England, though bishops 
alone ordain bishops. If this be used as a matter oi pru- 
dential arrangement by a particular branch of the Christian 
church, it may be justified on the principle that such non- 
essential things may be left to the discretion of each church 
to determine ; but when it becomes urged as divine law ; 
when, upon this principle, the ministers of churches who 
use no such episcopal ordinations, are declared to be no 
ministers, and all their ordinances vain ; here the whole 
question is altered altogether : the peace of the Christian 
world at large is broken ; the ministers and people of all 
other churches are insulted ; a monstrous system of spirit- 
ual tyranny is introduced ; and a many-headed Popery is 
established upon this shallow pretence of the sole au- 
thority of bishops by divine right. 

That bishops ordaining or consecrating bishops is a 
nonessential, demonstrably follows from the proofs that 
have been given in these pages, that the order of bishops 
itself is a mere matter of ecclesiastical arrangement, and 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 137 

has no divine right. At first they were made merely by 
the election of their fellow-presbyters, as in the church of 
Alexandria, for nearly two hundred years. Then it seems 
some ceremony was used in placing them in the higher 
chair or throne^ as it was called ; so the term for it came 
to be ENTHRONizATioN. Yet so far was it from impress- 
ing any indelible character, as they call it ; or conferring, 
as an act, extraordinary powers, forming a distinct order, 
that this enthronization or consecration was frequently 
repeated, when an individual was removed from one 
bishopric to another. So, for instance, Socrates,^ speak- 
ing of Miletius, who first had been bishop of Sebastia, 
afterward of Beraea, but after this was sent for by the in- 
habitants of Antioch to be their bishop, says that here, at 
Antioch, another, a third enthronization, was performed. 
Many cases of a similar character might be given. And, 
indeed, that the consecration of bishops was not considered 
at the Reformation to be, like ordination, incapable of repe- 
tition, will be evident from the fact, that many bishops were 
then consecrated anew when translated to other bishoprics ; 
as may be seen by the instances and the words given from 
the registers, in Courayer on English Ordinations. t The 
Oxford Tract-men have a little outwitted themselves in 
publishing Archbishop Cranmer's translation of Justice 
Jonas's " Sermon on Apostolical Succession and the Power 
of the Keys," as containing the " mature and deliberate 
judgment" of Cranmer on these subjects. For, after 
speaking of ordination as performed by the apostles upon 
others for " the ministration of God^s word,^'' he adds, "And 
THIS was the consecration, orders, and unction of the apos- 
tles, whereby they, at the beginning, made bishops and 
priests, and this shall continue in the church even to the 
world's end. And whatsoever rite or ceremony hath been 
added more than this, cometh of marCs ordinance and policy, 
and is not commanded by God's word." Now Cranmer, 
we shall see, in the next section, distinctly maintained 
that bishops and priests were, by the law of God, the same. 
Here he says that that consecration, orders, and unction 
whereby the apostles appointed individuals to the minis- 
tration of God's word, was the only real ordination they 

"'*■ Eccles. Hist., part ii, chap. 44. 

t Page 65, English translation, London, 1725, 8vo, 



138 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

had ; for " whatsoever rite or ceremony had been added 
more than this, cometh of marCs ordinance and poHcy, and 
is not commanded by God^s word." " Cranmer and Bar- 
low," says Corn-ay er, " affirm that the consecration [of a 
bishop] is not necessary^ and that the designation [or ap- 
pointing to the office] is sufficient."* 

We wish to study brevity ; otherwise it would be easy 
to show at length the same point, viz., that the ordination 
or consecration of bishops, as distinct from their ordination 
as presbyters, has nothing in it but a mere human ceremony 
of appointing an individual to some specific duties in the 
church. The word of God has not a syllable upon it : 
therefore it is utterly void of divine authority. There is 
not a particle of genuine evidence upon it for the first 
hundred years after Christ. It never had, in any age, any 
thing that essentially distinguished it from the ordination 
of a presbyter. This is abundantly evident from Morinus's 
celebrated work on Ordinations. There it is shown, that 
in every thing but imposition of hands, different churches 
and different ages have varied from each other ; and, in 
most of the matters, have varied without end. Now that 
cannot be essential to a thing which ^sometimes does not 
exist with it at all ; and this is the case with every thing 
belonging to the consecration of bishops, excepting impo- 
sition of hands ; and even this, in some cases, was not 
used. Imposition of hands is common to the ordination of 
a presbyter as well as to that of a bishop ; it cannot be 
common to both, and yet essentially distinguish the one 
from the other ; there is nothing, therefore, in the conse- 
cration of a bishop, nor ever was, that essentially distin- 
guished it from the ordination of a presbyter. If it be 
pleaded that the church has appointed words to be used at 
this consecration to distinguish it from that of a presbyter ; 
we grant it. But then the church never had any authority 
from Scripture to do more in this than to make it a pru- 
dential ecclesiastical arrangement. The reformers of the 
Church of England did not even appoint any words for the 
act of consecration to distinguish the office of a bishop 
from that of a presbyter : the words that now distinguish 
them were added in later times. 

* P. 147; and see Burnet's Ref., vol. i, Record, No. 21. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 139 

If, then, the consecration of bishops is a mere human 
ceremony, it is impossible that the act of bishops, as 
bishops, in ordination, can have any divine efficacy or 
authority above that of presbyters. Bishops may ordain 
one another for ever, but this would never change the 
matter. A cipher multiplied by a cipher always produces a 
cipher. Ml the authority, then, that bishops have to ordain 
men to the ministration of God's word and sacraments, 
arises from their authority as presbyters, and from this 
ALONE. Scores of bishops in the Romish Church never 
were presbyters : yet these men have ordained presbyters 
and bishops in the church without number. Through these 
our high Churchme i have received their boasted orders. 
Such is their van w-- \ " unbroken seines of valid ordina- 
tions^'^ and apostolical succession ! 

The tenacity of high Churchmen to their exclusive and 
intolerant scheme must be my apology to the reader for 
the length of this section. We will now state the result 
of the inquiry : — 

1 . No clear evidence appears that any of the fathers of 
the first three centuries, or any council, ever maintained 
this high Church doctrine of the divine right of bishops 
ALONE to be successors of the apostles, and to ordain and 
GOVERN pastors as well as people. 

2. No DISTINCTION appears between the office of pres- 
byter and bishop in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, nor 
in the Epistle of Polycarp, the most ancient and genuine 
pieces we have in the first century. 

3. In the second and folio v^ring centuries, a custom 
GRADUALLY bccomes established for one presbyter to be 
placed over the others ; and the term bishop, or superin- 
tendent, becomes appropriated to him alone. 

4. The ancients assign, as the reason for this arrange- 
ment, the honour of the church — the peace of the church — 
\hQ prevention of schisms or divisions— "din^ the unity of the 
lohole. So Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary or Ambrose, Augus- 
tine and Jerome. 

5. Presbyters presided over the church ; in some 
places it would seem chiefly : but even where a superin- 
tendency had taken place, they appear with the bishop, as 
sitting to rule in common with him ; and without them he 
could not do any thing of importance in the church. So 



140 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Ignatius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, Cor- 
nelius, Firmilian, and Jerome. 

6. Presbyters ordained. This is, as to the fact, 
proved by Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of Cesarea, in 
Cappadocia ; by the custom of the church of Alexandria 
for the first two hundred years after Christ ; by the testi- 
mony of Jerome and Eutychius ; and by the council of 
Ancyra, and the council of Nice. The right of power 
also necessarily follow^s from their being the same order 
as bishops. 

7. Presbyters are the successors of the apostles; this 
is distinctly stated by Ignatius, Irenseus, and Jerome. We 
have not yet given a most striking passage of Jerome on 
this point. Hear him then : " Do you approach to the 
clergy ? — God forbid that I should speak disparagingly 
of the CLERGY : they are successors to the degree of 
APOSTLES, — qui apostolico gradui succedentesr And, after 
mentioning the difficulties and dangers of their station, he 
says, "' Non est facile stare loco Pauli ; tenere gradum 
PetriJ^ — " It is no easy matter to stand in the place of 
Paul, nor in the degree of Peter J^^ 

8. The ONLY true and indispensable succession to the 
apostles is the succession of faith, and not of persons : 
Iren^us, Tertullian, and Ambrose. This last bishop says, 
" They have not the succession of Peter, who have not the 
faith of Peter."t 

The conclusion is, then, that in the purest Christian 
antiquity, bishops and presbyters were, by divine right, the 
same ; " all the difference which existed, in fact, between 
them was almost nothing ;" and was merely by custo?n, or 
the use of the church, as a prudential measure, to promote 
order, peace, and unity. Ordination by presbyters, and 
all other acts of presbyters, are, by divine right, equally 
VALID with those of bishops : the succession of faith is the 
only true succession. Ministers and churches who do not 
hold this — who adulterate it — are to be forsaken ; and 
those ALONE received as truly apostolical successors, 
ministers, ordinances, and churches, lohere this faith is 
preached as the apostles preached it, and as they left it to 
us in the sacred Scriptures as their last will and testa- 
ment, sealed as with their oath, and their blood. Let the 

^ Epist. ad Heliodorum de Vita Eremetica. f De Penitentia. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 141 

semi-popish divines, allowed improperly in the Church of 
England, and the thorough-going Papists of our country, 
look about them. Their succession is not the succession 
of the apostles, nor of the earliest fathers ; but 2i fabri- 
cation of their own, based xv^on false assumptions, and built 
up by bigotry and intolerance, out of human traditions, 
forged authorities, and abominable idolatries. See section 
X of this Essay. 



APPENDIX TO SECTION VL 

ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES 
MENTIONED IN THE REVELATION ; AND ON THE SUPPOSED DIFFICULTY OF 
ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EPISCOPACY AT SO EARLY AN AGE OF 
THE CHURCH. 

There are two points which Episcopal wTiters consider 
of much importance in thia controversy, and which we 
have not yet introduced. They might chronologically 
have been introduced sooner ; but the reader wall here 
examine them with greater advantage, after the preceding 
discussion : they are, 

1. As to what are called the bishops of the seven 
churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. 
John : and, 

2. The supposed difficulty of accounting for the exist- 
ence of episcopacy at so early an age of the church, ex- 
cept on the principle that it is jure divino, established by 
divine right. 

First, then, as to what are called the bishops of the 
seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of 
St. John. As most of the difficulty upon both these points 
arises from the ambiguity of the words bishop or episcopus, 
and episcopacy, let it be premised that there are th7'ee 
different senses in which these words are used in this 
controversy. As to the word bishop : — this word is used 
in the New Testament, 1. As synonymous with the word 
presbyter ; " the names are common ;" see pages 83-86 of 
this Essay ; 2. Somewhere in the second or third century 
the word bishop was applied to distinguish the primus 
presbyter, appointed by the suffrages of the other presby- 
ters, and by ecclesiastical arrangement, as superintendent 



142 ON APOSTOLICAL SUGCESSION. 

of ministers and people ; 3. High Churchmen use it for an 
order of ministers claiming powers and authority incom- 
patible with the office of presbyters. Now v^e grant there 
were bishops in the seven churches of Asia in the first 
sense ; but we deny that there is any solid proof of their 
existence, in the second sense, in these seven churches. 
Clemens Romanus, who, according to the best authority, 
wrote A. D. 96 to the church at Corinth, (comparatively in 
the neighbourhood,) mentions not a syllable about a primus 
presbyter as superintendent over the presbyters. Presby- 
ters, according to Clemens, then " ruled the church in com- 
monP The Revelation is supposed to have been written 
only four years after this time. As to bishops in the third 
sense, high Church bishops, we utterly deny that there is 
any evidence of any such bishops in the seven churches. 
Even the corrupted Epistles of Ignatius would not sustain 
the authority of high Church bishops ; for presbyters are 
there made equal to the aj^jjstles : are they so with high 
Church bishops ? Nay, so far from this. Bishop Taylor 
maintains that bishops only are properly pastors, § 25 ; 
doctors, or teachers, ^ 26 ; and priests, § 27 : so that, on 
this scheme, poor presbyters are only a sort of tolerated 
pastors, existing by the leave of the bishops : see ^ 9 of his 
Episcopacy Asserted. As to tradition, on this question 
there is none that can be surely depended upon. Take, for 
instance, the case of Timothy's being bishop of Ephesus. 
There is absolutely none that gives him the rights and 
authority of a high Church bishop. But, passing the ques- 
tion of the kind of episcopacy, for a moment, is there any 
satisfactory proof of the fact, that Timothy was bishop of 
Ephesus, one of these seven churches ? I unhesitatingly 
answer, There is not; see page 57 of this Essay. Dr. 
Whitby grants, " that he can find nothing on this subject 
in any vi^riter of the first three centuries'' But then he 
says " this defect is abundantly supplied by the concurrent 
suffrage of the fourth and fifth centuries." Well, let us 
see. He refers to Eusebius first, and very properly : for 
succeeding authors generally took their reports from him. 
If the fountain fails us, the streams must fail too. Now 
Eusebius honestly confesses, that though he made it a 
main point, in writing his history of the early ages of the 
church, to inquire into such matters, yet all was dark, and 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 143 

he " could nowhere find so much as the hare steps of any 
who had passed that path of inquiry before him," excepting 
something like ** a torch here and there afar offP Then, 
speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches founded by 
them, he says, " Now how many, and what sincere fol- 
lowers of them have been approved as sufficient to take 
the charge of those churches by them founded, is not easy 
to say, except such and so many as may he collected from 
the words of Saint Paul.^^ Does this sort of evidence 
abundantly supply the defect of the total silence of the first 
three centuries? And nothinof better is to be found. Euse- 
bius says, " Timothy is reported to have been the first that 
was chosen to the bishopric of the Ephesian church." He 
gives no authority; which he always does when he has it. 
The report is evidently only guess-work, in its origin, 
having arisen from St. Paul's mentioning his name in 
connection with Ephesus ; but see page 57 of this Essay. 
The stories injCcclesiastical history about the early bishops 
and founders of churches are generally full of confusion 
and contradiction ; they are mostly the inventions of a 
later age. See section x. But were we to grant these 
statements (confusion as they are) to be true, they never 
make the powers and authority to be those of high Church 
bishops ; the preceding discussion has abundantly shown 
this. The result, then, of this investigation of ecclesias- 
tical authority, and of tradition on this point, is, that there 
were bishops in the seven churches of Asia ; for bishops 
and presbyters are spoken of by Clemens Romanus, the 
best authority on the subject, as one and the same ; that 
there is no clear evidence of a superintendency, in the 
seven churches, of a primus presbyter as over ministers 
and people ; and that, as to high Church bishops, it would 
be a burlesque to compare them with the bishops of the 
seven churches, and of Clemens Romanus. 

Secondly, let us consider the supposed difficulty of ac- 
counting for the existence of episcopacy at so early an age 
of the church, except on the principle that it is jure divine 
— established by divine right. Here we must remember 
the distinction above made, as to the different meanings 
of the word bishop : the- same applies to the w^ord episco- 
pacy. 1. We grant a Scriptural episcopacy by divine 
right, in which bishops and presbyters are identieal; 



144 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

2. We grant an ecclesiastical arrangement of superintend- 
ency, otherwise called episcopacy; 3. We grant a usurp- 
ation of powers and authority claimed for bishops by 
divine right, otherwise also called episcopacy. Now we 
have no difficulty in accounting for the first, or Scriptural 
episcopacy. The second also is easily accounted for, as is 
shown from Jerome, &c., in the preceding pages. The 
third kind, viz., high Church episcopacy, had no existence 
in the early ages of the church ; we have not to account, 
therefore, for lohat did not exist. 



SECTION VII. 

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AT THE REFORMATION AGAINST 

THESE CLAIMS. 

I KNOW it would be in vain for me to attempt to per- 
suade many Church people that I am not writing against 
the Church of England. They mean the Church as ne- 
cessarily implying a divine order of bishops, SfC. I mean 
the Church, according to the princijiles of the reformers.* 
They mean the Church with all its state importance, its 
wealth, its emolument, &c. The question of Church and 
State, in the abstract, is a matter of indiiference to me ; 
and I think it is indifferent also in the eye of the Scrip- 
tures. At the utmost, however, the connection of a church 
with the state is only a circumstance : it is not essential to 
the existence of the church. The church is spiritual. 
The church is, under God, founded on its doctrines, dis- 
cipline, and ordinances ; on the faith and the piety of its 
members. In this light I view the Church of England. 
Taking the Church of England in this view on the ques- 
tion before us, as constituted at the Reformation, I write 

* Froude, a leader among the Oxford Tract-men, says, "Really 
I hate the Reformation and the reformers more and more." — "Why 
do you praise Ridley ? Do you know sufficient good about him to 
counterbalance the fact that he was the associate of Cranmer, Peter 
Martyr, and Bucer 1 As far as I have gone, too, I think better than I 
was prepared to do of Bonner and Gardiner." — Froude'' s Remains, 
Very consistent ! 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 145 

not a sentence to oppose it, but daily pray for the blessing 
of God upon it, and upon all other Christian churches. 
Taking the words as frequently used by bigoted Church- 
men, I utterly deny the truth and Scriptural character of 
their claims and pretensions ; I believe them to be semi- 
popery, and necessarily leading to bigotry, intolerance, and 
persecution. Believing, as I do, that this is the nature 
and tendency of these claims, I think myself bound in 
conscience to put away all flattering titles as to any men 
or order of men, and to speak as plainly and powerfully as 
I can to the overthrow of this system from its foundation. 
Amicus Socrates, Amicus Plato, sed magis Amicus Veritas : 
— Socrates is my friend, Plato is my friend, but Truth is 
my friend above all friends. _ 

Having come through the Scriptural view, and the view 
of the fathers, on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 
we proceed to show that the English reformers main- 
tained that bishops and presbyters are, by divine right, the 
same order ; if this be proved, the whole system of high 
Church succession men falls to the ground. For if pres- 
byters be, by divine right, the same order as bishops, then 
their spiritual power and authority are the same ; all their 
ordinations are equal to episcopal ordinations ; the minis- 
try and ordinances of all the other Protestant churches in 
Great Britain, and on the continent, as being administered 
by presbyters, are equally Scriptural with those of any 
modern Episcopal Church : consequently all these exclu- 
sive and arrogant high Church claims for episcopal ordi- 
nations, &c., will vanish before the light and power of 
truth. Bigotry will lose its support, and intolerance its 
plea for persecution. Christian truth and Christian liberty 
will extend their hallowinor influences over the whole land. 
Then shall the heathen and the infidel exclaim, " See 
how these Christians love one another !" 

WicKLiFFE, who is called the morning star of the Re- 
formation, says, " / holdly assert one thing, viz., that in the 
primitive church, or in the time of St. Paul, two orders of 
the clergy were sufficient, that is, a priest and a deacon. 
In like manner / affirm, that in the time of Paul the pres- 
byter and the bishop were names of the same office. This 
appears from the third chapter of the First Epistle to 
Timothy, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus. 

7 



146 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

And the same is testified by that profound theologian 
Jerome."* 

But to come to those who actually formed the Articles, 
the Book of Orders, and the plan of the government of 
the Church of England. We shall give every reader the 
opportunity of seeing, with his own eyes, the truth of the 
matter, by extracts from original documents, as published 
by Bishop Burnet in his History of the Reformation. 
They appear to be the determinations of a convocation of 
archbishops, bishops, and divines ; for Cromwell, the king's 
vicar general, signs first, as presiding over the convocation. 
As these writers use the expressions " deacons or minis- 
ters, priests or bishops," it is hardly necessary to say to 
the most cursory reader, that they mean the same office 
by each of the terms in the separate clauses, " deacon or 
minister; priests or bishops." Bishop Burnet observes, 
** Another thing is that both in this writing, and in the 
Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, bishops d^ndi priests 
are spoken of as one and the same office." Priest, by 
these reformers, everywhere means presbyter. 

Bishop Burnet's remarks on the nature and value of 
these documents, shall now introduce them. He says, 
*' After some of the sheets of this History were wrought off, 
I met with manuscripts of great authority, out of which I 
have collected several particulars, that give a clear light 
to the proceedings in those times. — I shall here add them." 
" In this writing, bishops and priests are spoken of as one 
and the same office. It had been the common style of that 
age,^^ says he, " to reckon bishops and priests as the same 
office:' 

Here follow extracts from the document called *' A De- 
claration made of the Functions and Divine Institution of 
Bishops and Priests. An Original." 

" As touching the sacraments of the holy orders, we 
will that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and 
teach our people committed by us unto their spiritual 
charge," 

" First, — How that Christ and his apostles did institute 
and ordain in the New Testament — certain ministers or 
officers, which should have spiritual power, authority, and 

* Wickliffe's Trialogus, as quoted bv Vaughan in his excellent Life 
Qf Wickliffe, vol. ii, p. 275, ed. 1831, Lond. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 147 

commission under Christ, to preach, &c., and to order and 
consecrate others in the same room, order, and office, 
whereunto they be called and admitted themselves : and 
finally to feed Christ's people like good pastors and rec- 
tors," &c. 

'' Item ; That this office, this ministration, this powc^ 
and authority, is no tyrannical power, having no certain 
laws or limits within the which it ought to be contained, 
nor yet none absolute power, but it is a moderate power, 
subject, deter 7nined^di,i\direstrai}iedviX\ioX\i0^e certain limits 
and ENDS for the which the same was appointed by God's 
ordinance ; — it appear eth that the same was a limited power 
and ojfice, ordained especially and only for the causes and 
purposes before rehearsed." 

" Item ; That this office, this power and authority, was 
committed and given hy Christ and his apostles unto cer- 
tain persons only, that is to say, unto priests or bishops, 
whom they did elect, call, and admit thereunto by their 
prayer and imposition of their hands." 

" Secondly, — The invisible gift of grace conferred in 
this sacrament is nothing else but the power, the offices, 
and the authority before mentioned : the visible and out- 
ward sign is the prayer and imposition of the bishop's 
hands, upon the person which receiveth the said gift or 
grace. And to the intent the church of Christ should 
never be destitute of such ministers as should have and 
execute the said power of the keys, it was also ordained 
and commanded by the apostles, that the same s,acrament 
should be applyed and ministered by the bishop from time 
to time, unto such other persons as had the qualities, which 
the apostles very diligently deseryve [describe ;] as it ap- 
peareth evidently in the third chapter of the First Epistle 
of St. Paul to Timothy, and his Epistle unto Titus. And 
surely this is the whole virtue and efficacy, and the cause 
also of the institution of this sacrament, as it is found in 
the New Testament ; for albeit the holy fathers of the 
church which succeeded the apostles, minding to beautifie 
and ornate the church of Christ with all those things 
which were commendable in the temple of the Jews, did 
devise not only certain other ceremonies than be before 
rehearsed, as tonsures, rasures, unctions, and such other 
observances to be used in the administration of thq said 



148 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

sacraments, but did also institute certain inferiour orders or 
degrees, janitors, lectors, exorcists, acolits and subdeacons, 
and deputed to every one of those certain offices to exe- 
cute in the church, wherein they followed undoubtedly the 
example and rites used in the Old Testament ; yet the 
TRUTH IS, that in the New Testament there is no mention 
made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of 
deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops : nor is 
there any word spoken of any other ceremony used in the 
conferring of this sacrament, but only of prayer, and the 
imposition of the bishop's hands." 

" Thomas (Ld.) Cromwell, {the King's Vicar Geoffrey Downes. 

General.) John Skip. 
T. Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Cuthbert Marshall. 

Edward, Archbishop of York. Marmaduke Waldeby. 

John, Bishop of London. Robert Oking. 

Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham. Nicholas Heyth. 

John, Bishop of Lincoln. Ralph Bradford. 

John, Bishop of Bath. Richard Smith. 

Thomas, Bishop of Ely. Simon Matthew. 

John, Bishop of Bangor. John Prynn. 

Nicholas, Bishop of Salisbury. William Buckmastre. 

Edward, Bishop of Hereford. William Maye. 

Hugo, Bishop of Worcester. Nicholas Wotton. 

John, Bishop of Rochester. Richard Cox. 

Richard, Bishop of Chichester. John Edmonds. 

Richard Wolman. Thomas Robertson. 

John Bell. Thomas Baret. 

William Clyffe. John Nase. 

Robert Aldridge. John Barbar. 

(Some other hands there are that cannot be read,) doctors 
of laws and doctors of divinity!'^* 

Here the reader sees the Church of England solemnly 
declare, in convocation, that bishops and presbyters are one 
and the same office. Their ''power, authority, and commis- 
sion under Christ," are made equal ; in which is expressly 
laid down their equal power, authority, and commission 
" to order [ordain] and consecrate others in the same 
room, order, and office, whereunto they be called and ad- 
mitted themselves." This is their solemn view of the 
''divine institution of bishops and presbyters J^ What then 
can the reader think of those divines of this Church who 
deny that bishops and presbyters are, by divine right, ac- 

t Burnet's History of the Reformation, Collection of Records, B. 3, 
Add. No. 6. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 149 

cording to the true Church of England, one and the saine 
office ; and deny also that ordination by presbyters is, by 
divine institution^ equal to ordination by bishops ? If any 
should pretend that the doctrine of this Church has been 
altered since the time above referred to, let him show when 
and where; let him produce the documents published by 
the Church, met in solemn convocation rescinding or repeal- 
ing the above, and as plainly declaring the order of bish- 
ops to be by divine institution superior to, and incompatible 
with, the office of presbyters as such ; and that such bishops 
ALONE have " power, authority, and commission, under 
Christ, to order and consecrate others in the same room^ 
order, and stead, whereunto they be called and admitted 
themselves," Nothing short of this will avail. They 
know they cannot do it. 

The date of the above document Burnet shows to be 
1537 or 1538. In Burnet's account of the drawing up of 
a " Declaration of the Christian Doctrine for Necessary 
Erudition of a Christian Man," he remarks, that the convo- 
cation books are lost ; but that Fuller, his only guide, 
" assures thQ world that he copies out of the records with 
his own hand what he published." Now Fuller calls the 
assembly of bishops, &c., that drew up this declaration a 
convocation. Burnet has a little doubt of the -correctness 
of this statement. But all he says is easily reconcilable 
with it. It would be out of all rule to allow trifles to set 
aside the statement made by a grave divine, declaring to 
the world that " he copies out of the records with his own 
hand." The assembly, then, was a convocation. This 
point is thus decided by Dr. Laurence : " Before its pub- 
lication it was approved by the convocation then sitting, in 
which it was examined in parts, as appears evident from 
the Minutes of that assembly, in Wilkins's Concilia Mag- 
nae Britanniae, vol. iii, p. 868."* The work thus drawn up, 
examined, and approved by the convocation, " The Ne- 
cessary Erudition of a Christian Man," was published by 
royal authority, and hence also usually called the King's 
Book. No determinations in the Church of England can 
have higher authority. In the chapter of orders, they 
*^ expressly resolve that priests and bishops^ by God^s law, 
are 07ie and the same ; and that the power of ordination 

* Dr. Laurence's Bampton Lectures, p. 19L 



150 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and excommunication belongs equally to both."* What 
can be more decisive ! Comment would darken this clear 
statement ; and to multiply words would be to dilute and 
weaken its force. 

The following are extracts from their decisions indi- 
vidually. 

Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury. — " The hish" 
ops and priests were at one time, and were no two things; 
but BOTH ONE OFFICE in the beginning of Christ's religion." 

Bishop of LoNDOx>f. — " I think the bishops were first ; 
and yet I think it is not of importance, whether the priest 
then MADE the bishop, or the hishop the priest ; considering 
after the sentence of Jerome, that in the beginning of the 
church there was none (or if it were, very small) differ- 
ence between a bishop and a priest, especially touching 

the SIGNIFICATION." 

Dr. Robertson. — " I do not think it absurd that a 
priest should consecrate a bishop, if a bishop cannot be 
had." 

Dr. Cox. — "Although by Scripture, (as St. Hierome 
saith,) priests and bishops be one, and therefore the one 
not before the other ; yet bishops, as they be now, were 
AFTER priests ; and therefore made of (hy) priests." 

Dr. Redmayne. — " They all be of like beginning, and 
at the beginning were both one, as St. Hierome and other 
old authors show by the Scriptures, wherefore one made 
another indifferently T Burnet says that Dr. Redmayne 
"was esteemed the most learned and judicious divine of that 
time." When the convocation " were about to state the 
true notion of faith, Cranmer commanded Dr. Redmayne, 
who was esteemed the most learned and judicious divine 
of that time, to write a short treatise on these heads ; 
which he did with that solidity and clearness, that it will 

* Calamy's Defence of Nonconformity, vol. i, p. 91, ed. 1703. This 
is the substance of that chapter, given in the words of Calamy. Its 
words in the Necessary Erudition are such as the following : " Of two 
orders only, that is to say, priests and deacons, Scripture maketh ex- 
press mention." Here presbyters and bishops are both one order. 
** All lawful powers and authorities of one bishop over another were to 
be given to them by the consent or ordinance, and positive laws of men 
only, and not by any ordinance of God in Holy Scripture." Then 
speaking of ministers of the gospel in general as successors of the apos- 
tles, they say that " Christ set them all indifferently, and in like 
power, dignity, and authority y 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 151 

sufficiently justify any advantageous character that can be 
given of the author." 

Here we find not only the most express statements that 
the reformers of the Church of England believed "bishops 
and presbyters to be one and the same office,^'' but that 

PRESBYTERS MADE, that is, ORDAINED BISHOPS, and MshopS 

presbyters, indifferently. 

The reader is now prepared to see through another 
common mistake. The Book for Ordaining Priests and 
bishops is appealed to in proof that the Church of England 
maintains that bishops and presbyters are not, by divine 
institution, one and the same office. Now the principal 
bishops and divines who composed the Book of Ordination 
in King Edward's time, were the same as those whose 
views on the divine institution of bishops and priests have 
been given above, and v/hose decisions in solemn convo- 
cation, ratified by royal authority, we have just heard. 
This book, the Book of Orders, was put forth in the time 
of King Edward YI. Cranmer, and most of the other 
compilers, outlived him. The interpretation, therefore, of 
this book, as then put forth, which would go to maintain 
episcopacy as by divine right to have powers and authority 
incompatible with priests or presbyters, as such, would be 
to assert that these eminent men determined one thing in 
solemn convocation, and then immediately put forth a book 
contradicting their former determination, without ever 
giving any intimation of such a change in their views ! 

Two parts of the Book of Ordination are appealed to by 
these writers for the purpose of maintaining the superiority 
of episcopacy by divine right : the part of the office for or- 
daining a bishop, as distinct from that part of the office for 
ordaining a presbyter ; and the preface to the book itself. 

First, then, as to the part of the office for ordaining or 
consecrating a bishop : let the reader keep in mind, that 
the question is not whether the English reformers made a 
class of ministers called archbishops and bishops, distinct 
from priests or presbyters ; no one denies this ; but the 
question is, did they do this on the principle of the divine 
right of the order of bishops, as distinct from, superior to, 
and incompatible with presbyters as presbyters ; or did 
they do it as an ecclesiastical arrangement^ for the honour 
of the bishops and the church ; for order, peace, unity, and 



152 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

good government ? They have solemnly answered for them- 
selves, that " by divine institution," bishops and pres- 
byters were one and the same office ; therefore they meant 
the distinction above referred to merely as an ecclesiastical 
arrangement according to the views of the Christian fathers, 
for the purposes just now specified. This is further evident 
from a fact of which many readers are not aware : it is this, 
that in the original hook, and up to the time of Charles II., 
there was no difference in the looi^ds of ordaining a 
bishop, to distinguish his office from that of a presbyter. 
Bishop Burnet grants " there was then no express mention 
made in the words of ordaining them, that it was for the 
one or the other office." It cannot be denied ; the old 
form is standing evidence of the fact. In the time of King 
Charles II., about 1662, the bishops who had the care of 
revising the ordination service, after these words, ''Receive 
the Holy Ghost," — added, with regard to priests, — " for 
the office and work of a priest, now committed unto 
thee by the imposition of our hands :" — and, with respect to 
the bishop, " for the office and work of a bishop in the 
Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposi- 
tion of our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And in the interrogatories 
put to the bishop elect, there is one added, not anciently 
used, namely, this : '' Will you be faithful in ordaining, 
sending, or laying hands upon others ?" with this answer — 
" I will so be by the help of God." Moreover those pas- 
sages of the New Testament that speak so expressly on the 
duties of a Scriptural bishop, were made part of the office 
of ordaining a priest or presbyter, and continued so until 
1662. The form of ordaining a presbyter commenced 
with the epistle, as it is termed, out of Acts xx, 17-35 : or, 
in its place, 1 Tim. iii, entire. The reader will do well to 
read the places. Then for the gospel, — the commission 
given by our Lord to his ministers, as in Matt, xxviii, 18, 
and other passages out of John, chapter x, and xx. Now 
these passages thus applied to presbyters, in the solemn act 
of setting them apart to their office, clearly show that the 
Book of Orders, up to 1662, bore solemn testimony to their 
being, by divhie right, Scriptural bishops ; and the very 
commission (Matt, xxviii, 18) about which high Churchmen 
make such a parade as belonging solely to bishops as a 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 153 

distinct order, superior to, and incompatible with presby- 
ters simply as such — this very coinmission is, in this solemn 
act^ given by the reformers to presbyters alone, and is 
Qiever applied to bishops as such, in any part of their ordi- 
nation. In the revision of 1662 these scriptures were 
omitted in the form of ordaining a presbyter^ and were ge- 
nerally transferred to the form of consecrating a bishop. 
There was, indeed, in the old form of the consecration of a 
bishop, very little Scripture employed. The reformers, it is 
clear, looked upon it only as a decent ceremony^ but as 
having no ScripturaJ authority, nor conferring any addition- 
al divine authority.* The changes in 1662 maybe thought 
to show the wishes of some of the parties concerned ; but 
still they do not alter Rny principle in the old form. All the 
alterations consist in detail and arrangement. 

The reformers of the Church of England, also, appointed 
presbyters to perform the imposition of hands in ordaining 
presbyters, along with bishops. So directs the Book of 
Ordaining Priests, &c. : " When this prayer is done, the 
bishop, WITH THE PRIESTS present, shall lay their hands 
severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order 
of priesthood ; the receivers humbly kneeling upon their 
knees, and the bishop saying. Receive the Holy Ghost," &c. 
As the reformers believed that bishops and presbyters 
were, by the Scripture, one and the same office, this ordi- 
natio7i was, in their view, the only real Scriptural ordina- 
tion constituting any person, a minister of God's w^ord. 
Presbyters then are actually ordainers in all the Scriptural 
ordinations that ever have taken place in the Church of 
England. Several acts of parliament have ratified the or- 
dination of such as were ordained by presbyters only. 
Thus in the 13th of Elizabeth, cap. 12 — "An act for the 
ministers of the Church to be of sound religion. That 
the churches of the queen's majesty's dominions may be 
served with pastors of sound religion. Be it enacted, that 
every person under the degree of bishop, which doth or 
shall pretend to be a priest, or minister of God's holy word 
and sacrament, by reason of any other form of institution, 
consecration or ordering, \ordaining,'\ than the form set 
forth by parliament, shall declare his assent and subscribe 
the articles," and on these conditions he shall retain orders 

* Vide Burnet's Records, book 3, No. 21, quest. 10-14. 

5* 



154 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and benefice. So in the 12tli Caroli, cap. 17 — "Beit 
enacted, that any ecclesiastical person or minister, being 
ordained by any ecclesiastical persons, &c., shall be, and 
is hereby declared, adjudged, and enacted to have been, be 
and continue the real and lawful incumbent, parson, rector, 
vicar and possessor of the said ecclesiastical benefice, 
livings and promotions respectively to all intents and pur- 
poses whatever." By these acts, hundreds of ministers v^ho 
had no more than preshyterian ordination, or ordination by 
presbyters alone, without the presence of any bishop, were 
confirmed in their livings as true ministers in the Church of 
England. See a license also to this effect by Archbishop 
Grindal, " approving and ratifying the form of ordination," 
by a Scotch presbytery, of Mr. Morrison, a Scots divine ; 
and giving him commission " throughout the Avhole diocess 
of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to minister sac- 
raments," &c.* " No bishop in Scotland, during my stay 
in that kingdom," saith Burnet, bishop of Sarum, " ever did 
so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be reordain- 
ec?."t Bishop Cosin, speaking of the presbyterian ordina- 
tion of the French churches, says, "If at anytime a minister 
so ordained in these French churches came to incorporate 
himself in ours, and to receive a public charge, or cure of 
souls among us, in the Church of England, (as I have 
known some of them to have so done of late, and can in- 
stance in many other before my time,) our bishops did not 
reordain him before they admitted him to his charge ; as 
they must have done, if his former ordination in France 
had been void. Nor did our lams require more of him than 
to declare his public consent to the religion received among 
us, and to subscribe the articles established." See a 
letter from Dr. John Cosin, afterward bishop of Durham, 
to Mr. Cordel, who scrupled to communicate with the 
French Protestants upon some of the modern pretences, 
published by Dr. Isaac Basire, archdeacon of Northum- 
berland, in his account of Bishop Cosin, annexed to his 
funeral sermon, and given as an appendix to " the judgment 
of the Church of England in the case of lay baptism. "J It 

* Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i. 

t Bishop of Sarum's Vindication, printed London, 1696, pp. 84, 85» 
as quoted by Owen in his" Ordination by Presbyters," Introd. 
t Second edit. London, 1713. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 155 

is a curious fact, that anciently incumbents, rectors, &c., 
were styled prelates.* As the constitution of this 
Church has established an order of men as bishops or su- 
perintendents, requiring all important matters to be under 
their superintendency, and that no ordinations especially 
should be performed without them^ it is right enough to 
refuse any one regidarly to minister in that Church, who 
positively and wilfully resists this arrangement. If this be 
done without claiming divine right for this superintendency, 
and without attempting to unchurch other churches because 
they do not adopt it, the writer would not say one word 
against it. Every church has a right to use its own judg- 
ment in such matters. 

Now for the second point, viz., the preface to the Book 
of Ordination. 

The words in the preface — " It is evident unto all men, 
diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that 
from the apostles' time, there hath been these orders of 
ministers in the Christian church ; bishops, priests, and 
deacons" — are the same as they were in King Edward's 
ordinal, and therefore have the same interpretation ; for 
there is nothing declared to the contrary in the revision 
of 1662. The question here, then, can be only as to the 
meaning which the reformers attached to the term order. 
Now we have seen that the fathers used it for a distinc- 
tion of persons in the church, possessing equal powers, by 
divine right, as gospel ministers. The reformers were 
familiar with the writings of the fathers. The proper in- 
terpretation of their language, then, is, that they mean, 
that from the apostles' times such distinctions as bishops, 
presbyters, and deacons had existed; not that the office 
or duties of a bishop were by divine institution incompatible 
with the office of a presbyter as a presbyter ; for they ex- 
pressly affirmed the contrary. The bishop of London, as 
above quoted, along with Cranmer, intimates that there 
might be " some small difference between a bishop and a 
priest in the beginning of the church." That some dis- 
tinction did exist even in the apostles' time, we do not 

* Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum. vol. i, pp. 183, 212, ed. 4th. 
Bishop Burnet, m the preface to his Vindication of the Ordinations of ^ 
the Church of Endand, shows that several abbots, thouorh no more than 
presbyters, not only wore the mitre, but ordained even bishops. 



156 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

deny. We only deny that the powers and authority of 
bishops and presbyters were incompatible with each other 
as such, by divine right. There is considerable proof, as 
was shown in section iii, that presbyters were superior 
in honour and duties to bishops, perhaps as much so as 
rectors are to curates ; yet not so as to constitute authority 
and powers incompatible with the office of bishops. The 
preface, then, contains no proof of bishops, by divine right, 
as an order such as high Churchmen pretend. 

Additional evidence will arise both to the above inter- 
pretation of the Book of Orders, and to the general ques- 
tion, by the testimony of Bishop Jewel.* Jewel was 
bishop in Elizabeth's time, considerably after the publish- 
ing of the Book of Ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 
He stands in the very first class of reformers for talent, 
piety, and learning ; and for the ability with which he de- 
fended the Church of England against the Papists. " His 
Apology," says Dr. Randolph, " has had the sanction of 
public authority, and may therefore be relied on as con- 
taining the final and decided opinion of our reformers, 
approved in the general by the church at large."! The 
Apology was published in 1562. Harding, a Jesuit, pub- 
lished a Confutation of it. Jewel replied in a Defence 
of his Apology. This Defence, imbodying the Apology 
also, was in such universal and high repute, that it was 
placed in the parish churches to be read by all, as giving 
the best viev/ of all the matters therein contained, corro- 
borated by the authorities of Scripture and the fathers of 
the first six centuries. Many have probably seen this 
huge folio, fastened with chains to a reading-desk, in the 
church. The edition from which I quote has a large 
strong iron plate at the bottom, with a hole through it, 
where the chain had been formerly fastened. In his 
Apology, he says, " That the catholic church is the king- 
dom, the body, and spouse of Christ ; that Christ is the 

* Richard Hurrel Froude, a first-rate Oxford Tract-man, speaking 
of this illustrious writer, says, " Jewel was what you, [the Oxford 
Tract-men,] in these days, call an irreverent Dissenter. His Defence 
of his Apology disgusted me more than almost any work I ever read. 
He laughs at the apostolical succession, both in principle and as a fact; 
and says that the only succession worth having is the succession of 
DOCTRINE." — Fronde's Remains. 

t Preface to Br. Randolph's '' Enchiridion Theologicum." 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 157 

only Prince of this kingdom ; that there are in the church 
divers orders of ministers ; that there are some who are 
deacons, others who are presbyters, and others who are 
bishops, to whom the instruction of the people, and the 
care and management of religion, are committed." Part ii, 
sec. 6. Now here is the distinction of bishops, presbyters, 
and deacons, called " divers orders^ Does this great 
writer, and champion of the Church of England, then, 
mean that bishops are an order, by divine right, with 
powers and authority incompatible with presbyters, as 
such ? Let him explain himself in his Defence. Harding, 
it seems, for the sake of caviling, had introduced the 
question of the difference between priests and bishops, or 
*' the distinction of a bishop and a priest," as he himself 
expresses it. Bishop Jewel says, " Here, to weigh down 
the AUTHORITY of GoD's HOLY WORD, Mr. Harding hath 
brought in a heap of ordinary stale quarrels of the differ- 
ence between priests and bishops ; of Lent ; of the com- 
munion book ; of the homilies ; of the order of service ; 
and of the peiyetiial virginity of our Ladie. His whole 
DRIFT herein is to bear us in hand, that there is very little 
or NO AUTHORITY in the Scriptures ; and that the whole 
credit and certainty of our faith resteth only in the 
Church of Rome, But what means Mr. Harding here to 
come in with the difference between priests and bishops ? 
Thinketh he that* priests and bishops hold only by tra- 
dition ? Or is it so horrible a heresy as he maketh it, to 
say that hy the Scriptures of God, a bishop and a priest are 
all one ? Or knoweth he how far, and unto whom he 
reacheth the name of heretic ? Verily Chrysostom saith, 

* Between a bishop and a priest iii a manner there is no 
difference.'^ St. Hierome saith, somewhat in rougher sort, 

* I hear say there is one become so peevish, that he setteth 
deacons before priests, that is to say, before bishops : 
whereas the apostle plainly teaches us, that priests and 

* Jewel does not here mean the distinction only, but the things 
themselves also : for his (Harding's) whole drift, and the whole drift 
of Popery, is, "to bear us in hand that there is very little or no 
authority in the Scriptures ; and that the luhole credit and certainty of 
our faith resteth only in the Church of Rome y — A remark which no 
Protestant should ever forget. To accomplish this, some of their 
greatest men have exerted all their learning and ingenuity. 



158 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

bishops be all one.' Augustine saith, 'What is a bishop 
but the first priest, — that is, the highest priest V So saith 
St. Ambrose, ' There is but one consecration of priests and 
bishops : for both of them are priests, but the bishop is the 
first.'' All these, and other more holy fathers, together 
WITH St. Paul the apostle, for thus saying, by Mr. 
Harding's advice, must be holden for heretics."* He thus 
quotes Augustine in another place : " Augustine saith ' the 
office of a bishop is above the office of a priest,' (not by 
authority of the Scriptures, but) after the names of honour 
which the custom of the church hath now obtained," 
p. 100. The words '^ not by authority of Scripture,^'' are 
Jewel's own words, put in to explain Augustine's sense. 
Jewel, we see, perfectly agrees with Cranmer, and the 
rest of the bishops and divines who formed the Constitu- 
tion, Government, and Book of Ordination, of the Church 
of England. He believes "bishops and presbyters, by 
the Scriptures of God, are all one ;" that, as Augustine 
saith, " the office of a bishop is above the office of a priest, 
(not by authority of the Scriptures, but) after the names 
of honour which the custom of the church hath obtained." 
His mention, as we have seen, in the Apology, oi '' divers 
orders, deacons, presbyters, and bishops," does not imply 
that the order of bishops has, by *' authority of Scripture," 
prerogatives incompatible with presbyters, but that, while 
by the Scriptures, as to rights and authority, they are one, 
yet they are there distinct names, and that the bishop is 
the first priest or presbyter, and above the other presbyters 
by the names of honour which the custom of the church 
hath obtained. So meant the reformers, and so means the 
ordination service. 

Dr. Whitaker, who lived in the time of Queen Elizabeth, 
was a profoundly learned divine of the Church of England, 
and a mighty champion of the Reformation against Popery. 
He says, " I confess that there was originally no difference 
between a presbyter and a bishop. Luther, and the other 
heroes of the Reformation, were presbyters, even accord- 
ing to the ordination of the Romish Church ; and, there- 
fore, they were, /?^re divino, bishops. Consequently, what- 
ever belongs to bishops, belongs also, jure divino, to them- 
selves. As for bishops being afterward placed over pres- 

* Page 202, fol. ed., 1609. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 159 

byters, that was a human arrangement for the removal of 
schisms, as the histories of the times testify."* 

Hooker appears to maintain the very same view in his 
fifth book of Ecclesiastical Polity, a work of the very 
highest authority with the Church of England, and for its 
reasoning, its language, and its learning, the admiration 
of all. The sixth, seventh, and eighth books are of no 
AUTHORITY ; they were not published by himself, and are 
acknowledged to have been altered much by other hands ; 
so that no confidence whatever can be placed in them as 
Hooker's. In the fifth book, sec. 78, he says, " Touching 
the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the whole body 
of the church being divided into laity and clergy, the 
clergy are either presbyters or deacons.'''^ Now where 
are bishops ? nowhere, except they be one and the same 
as presbyters. Nothing can be plainer. " For oi presby- 
ters^ some were greater, some less in power, and that by our 
Saviour's ow^n appointment ; the greater, they which re- 
ceived fulness of spiritual power, and the less, they to 
whom less was granted." Let the reader carefully attend, 
and he will see that by the greater presbyters he means 
the first apostles endowed with power of miracles, &c., 
and by the less or inferior presbyters, he means all other 
ordinary Christian ministers, without distinction. He goes 
on : " The apostles' peculiar charge was to publish the 
gospel of Christ unto all nations, and to deliver them his 
ordinances received by immediate revelation. Which pre- 
eminence excepted, to all other offices and duties incident 
to their" (that is, the apostles') " order, it was in them to 
ordaine and consecrate whomsoever they thought meet, 
even as our Saviour did himself assign seventy others of 
his own disciples inferior presbyters, whose commission to 
preach and baptize was the same which the apostles had." 
Here, then, all are inferior presbyters, except the twelve 
apostles, who received greater fulness of spiritual power, 
and delivered ordinances by immediate revelation ; and, 
which pre-eminence excepted, to all other offices and 
DUTIES incident to the order of the twelve apostles, all 
the inferior presbyters V7exe ordained and consecrated by 
the apostles. " To these two degrees^'' (as above men- 
tioned) '' appointed of our Lord and Saviour Christ, his 

* Whitakeri 0pp., vol. i, pp. 509 et 510, fol, Gcnev., 1610. 



160 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

apostles soon after annexed deacons.''^ — '' It appeareth, 
therefore, how long these three degrees of ecclesiastical 
order have continued in the church of Christ," (1.) "the 
highest and largest, that which the apostles,^^ (2.) "the 
next, that which the presbyters,^'' (3.) " the loioest, that 
which deacons had."- — " Evangelists were presbyters, of 
principal sufficiency." — " Pastors, what other were they 
than presbyters also !" — " I beseech them, therefore, which 
have hitherto troubled the church with questions about 
degrees and offices of ecclesiastical calling, because they 
principally ground themselves upon two places, (1 Cor. ii, 
28 ; Ephes. iv, 7-12,) that all partiality laid aside, they 
would sincerely weigh and examine whether they have 
not misinterpreted both places, and all by surmisiiig in- 
compatible offices where nothing is meant but sundry 
oTaces, orifts, and abilities which Christ bestowed." — " It 
clearly appeareth, that churches apostolike did know but 
three degrees in the power of ecclesiastical order, at the 
first, (1.) 'Apostles,' (2.) 'Presbyters,' and (3.) 'Bea- 
cons;' AFTERWARD, instead of apostlcs, bishops, concern- 
ing whose order we are to speak in the seventh book." 
This he never published. But he has clearly given his 
judgment that presbyters and bishops, in " apostolic 
churches," were one and the same order and office. All 
the ordinary powers and offices of apostles, he affirms, be- 
long to all gospel ministers, whom he calls, compared 
with the twelve apostles, " inferior presbyters." The powers 
of ordination were among those powers, and therefore be- 
long equally to them all, by divine right, whether bishops 
or presbyters. They were all one and the same in 
"apostolike churches." Bishops, as superintendents 
over other ministers, were not, according to Hooker, in 
the apostolike churches ; they arose afterward. 

Hooker's design was not to establish the divine right 
of episcopacy, but to oppose the exclusive claim for the di- 
vine right of presbyterianism ; and to show that the cere- 
monies and discipline of the Church of England were 
lawful, that is, not anti scriptural, not sinful. Accordingly 
we find him, in the third book of his celebrated work, 
actually and ably reasoning against the exclusive divine 
right of any special form of church government : " We 
must note," says he, "that he which affirmeth speech to 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 161 

be necessary among all men throughout the world, doth 
not thereby import that all men must necessarily speak 
one kind of language : even so the necessity of polity and 
regiment in all churches may be held, without holding 
any one certain form to be necessary in them all." — " The 
general principles [of Scripture] are such as do not parti- 
cularly prescribe any one, but sundry may equally be con- 
sonant unto the general axiomes of the Scripture." — ■" We 
reckon matters of government in the number of things 
accessary, not things necessary." — " But as for those things 
that are accessary, those things that so belong to the way 
of salvation, as to alter them, is no otherwise to change 
that way, than a path is changed by altering only the up- 
permost face thereof, which be it laid with gravel, or set 
with grass, or paved with stones, remaineth still the same 
path ; in such things because descretion may teach the 
church what is convenient, we hold not the church further 
tyed herein unto Scripture, than that against Scripture 
nothing be admitted in the church, lest that path which 
ought always to be kept even, do thereby become to be 
overgrown with brambles and thorns." — " I therefore con- 
clude, that neither God's being author of laws for govern- 
ment of his church, nor his committing them unto Scripture, 
is reason sufficient, vv^herefore all churches should for ever 
be bound to keep them without change." .This surely is 
sufficient to destroy for ever the claims of high Churchmen 
to the authority of Hooker in favour of their exclusive sys- 
tem. Hooker did not deny that presbyterianism was a 
valid form of church government, but he denied its exclusive 
validity ; and maintamed that episcopacy, when adopted 
by the church, was equally valid. So also the 36th Arti- 
cle : — "The Book of Consecration of Archbishops, &c., 
doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and 
ordering ; neither hath it any thing, that of itself is super- 
stitious and UNGODLY." Many of the Puritans and rigid 
Presbyterians denied this ; and were utterly opposed to an 
order of bishops at all, even as a human arrangement, as 
perpetual governors of ministers as well as oi people. This 
arose from what they had seen of it in Popery, and in some 
who abused it in their day. Though Popery did not 
maintain the divine right of bishops, yet the pope gave them 
rights, power, and jurisdiction : and the bishops, in return, 



162 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

took a solemn oath to be faithful to tlie pope ; they 
JOINED THEIR AUTHORITY to Twet the chains of 'priestly 
tyranny and bondage upon the church. The name of 
bishop, therefore, as well as that of pope, had generally 
become hateful at the Reformation and afterward. 

As the documentary evidence in this section has been 
considered highly valuable, the reader probably will not 
regret the insertion of an extract from Dr. Field's work 
" Of the Church." Dr. Field was a learned divine of the 
Church of England in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and 
of James I. Mr. Palmer has pronounced his work to be 
profoundly learned. It is highly valued ; and is both very 
scarce and very dear, so that but few readers can have 
access to it. This learned defender of the Church of 
England thus speaks on the subject of the identity of 
bishops and presbyters : — " But they will say, whatsoever 
may be thought of these places wherein bishops did 
ordain, yet in many other none but presbyters did impose 
hands ; all which ordinations are clearly void : and so, by 
consequence, many of the pretended reformed churches, 
as namely those of France, and others, have no ministry 
at all. The next thing, therefore, to be examined is, 
whether the power of ordination be so essentially annexed 
to the order of bishops, that none but bishops may in any 
case ordain. For the clearing whereof we must observe, 
that the whole ecclesiastical power is aptly divided into 
the power of order, and jurisdiction. Ordo est rerum pari- 
urn dispariumque unicuique sua loca trihuens congrua dispo- 
sitio : that is, — Order is an apt disposing of things, whereof 
some are greater and some lesser, some better and some 
meaner, sorting them accordingly into their several ranks and 
places. First, therefore, order doth signify that mutual 
reference or relation, that things sorted into their several 
ranks and places, have between themselves. Secondly, 
that standing, which each thing obtaineth, in that it is better 
or worse, greater or lesser than another, and so accordingly 
sorted and placed, above or below other, in the orderly 
disposition of things. The power of holy or ecclesiastical 
order is nothing else but that power which is specially 
given to men sanctified and set apart from others, to per- 
form certain sacred supernatural and eminent actions, 
which others of another rank may not at all, or not ordi- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 163 

narily meddle with. x\s to preach the word, administer 
the sacraments, and the like. 

" The next kind of ecclesiastical power is that of juris- 
diction. For the more distinct and full understanding 
whereof we must note, that three things are implied in the 
calling of ecclesiastical ministers. First, an election, 
choice, or desigmnent of persons fit for so high and excel- 
lent employment. Secondly, the consecrating of them, 
and giving them power and authority to intermeddle with 
things pertaining to the service of God, to perform eminent 
acts of gracious efficacy, and admirable force, tending to 
the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men, and 
to yield unto them whom Christ hath redeemed with his 
most precious bloo !, all the comfortable means, assurances, 
and helps that may set forward their eternal salvation. 
Thirdly, the assigning and dividing out to each man, thus 
sanctified to so excellent a work, that portion of God's 
people which he is to take care of, who must be directed 
by him in things that pertain to the hope of eternal salva- 
tion. This particular assignation giveth, to them that had 
only the power of order before, the power of jurisdiction 
also over the persons of men. 

" Thus, then, it is necessary that the people of God 
be sorted into several portions, and the sheep of Christ 
divided into several flocks, for the more orderly guiding of 
them, and yielding to them the means, assurances, and 
helps that may set them forward in the way of eternal life ; 
and that several men be severally and specially assigned 
to take the care and oversight of several flocks and por- 
tions of God's people. The apostles of Christ and their 
successors, when they planted the churches, so divided 
the people of God converted by their ministry, into parti- 
cular churches, that each city and the places near adjoin- 
ing did make but one church. Now because the unity 
and peace of each particular church of God, and flock of 
his sheep, dependeth on the unity of the pastor, and yet 
the necessities of the many duties that are to be performed 
in churches of so large extent, require more ecclesiastical 
ministers than one : therefore though there be many pres- 
byters, that is, m3,T\y fatherly guides of one church, yet there 
is one among the rest that is specially pastor of the place, 
who, for distinction sake, is named a bishop ; to whom an 



164 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

eminent and peerelesse power is given, for the avoiding of 
schisms and factions : and the rest are but assistants and 
coadjutors, and named by the general name of presbyters. 
So that in the performance of the acts of ecclesiastical 
ministry, when he is present and will do them himself, 
they must give place : and in his absence, or when being 
present he needeth assistance, they may do nothing with- 
out his consent and liking. Yea so fcir, for order sake, is 
he preferred before the rest, that some things are specially 
reserved to him only, as the ordaining of such as should 
assist him in the work of his ministry, the reconciling of 
penitents, confirmation of such as were baptized, by im- 
position of hands, dedication of churches, and such like. 

^' These being the diverse sorts and kinds of ecclesias- 
tical power, it will easily appear to all them that enter into 
the due consideration thereof, that the power of ecclesias- 
tical or sacred order, that is, the poiver and authority to 
intermeddle with things pertaining to the service of God, 
and to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy, tending 
to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men, is 
EQUAL and the same in all those whom we call presby- 
ters, that is, fatherly guides of God's church and people : 
and that only for order sake, and the preservation of 
peace, there is a limitation of the use and exercise of the 
same. Hereunto agree all the best learned among the 
Romanists themselves, freely confessing that that, wherein 
a bishop excelleth a presbyter, is not a distinct and higher 
order, or power of order, but a kind of dignity and office, 
or employment only. Which they prove, because a pres- 
byter ordained per saltum, that never was consecrated or 
ordained deacon, may notwithstanding do all those acts 
that pertain to the deacons order : (because the higher 
order doth always imply in it the lower and inferior, in an 
eminent and excellent sort.) But a bishop ordained per 
saltum, that never had the ordination of a presbyter, can 
neither consecrate and administer the sacrament of the 
Lord's body, nor ordain a presbyter, himself being none, 
nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to presbyters. Where- 
by it is most evident, that that wherein a bishop excelleth 
a presbyter, is not a distinct power of order, but an emi- 
nency and dignity only, specially yielded to one above all 
the rest of the same rank, for order sake, and to preserve 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 165 

the unity and i^cace of the church. Hence it followeth, 
that many things which in some cases presbyters may 
lawfully do, are peculiarly reserved unto bishops, as Hie- 
rome noteth ; Potiiis ad honorem sacerdotii^ quam ad legis 
necessitatem ; — Rather for the honour of their ministry, than 
the necessity of any law. And therefore we read, that 
presbyters, in some places, and at sometimes did impose 
hands, and confirm such as were baptized : which when 
Gregory, bishop of Rome, would wholly have forbidden, 
there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he 
left it free again. And who knoweth not, that all presby- 
ters, in cases of necessity, may absolve and reconcile 
penitents ; a thing in ordinary course appropriated unto 
bishops ? and why not by the same reason ordain presby- 
ters and deacons in cases of like necessity ? For, seeing 
the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts, is, be- 
cause to bishops ordinarily the care of all churches is 
committed, and to them in all reason the ordination of such 
as must serve in the church pertaineth, that have the chief 
care of the church, and have churches wherein to employ 
them ; which only bishops have as long as they retain 
their standing : and not presbyters, being but assistants to 
bishops in their churches. If they become enemies to 
God and true religion, in case of such necessity, as the 
care and government of the church is devolved to the pres- 
byters remaining catholick, and being of a better spirit : so 
the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeed them 
in the work of the ministry pertains to them likewise. For 
if the power of oi^der and authority to intermeddle in things 
pertaining to God's service be the same in all presbyters, 
and that they be limited in the execution of it, only for 
orders sake, so that in case of necessity, every of them 
may baptize and confirm them whom they have baptized, 
absolve and reconcile penitents, and do all those other 
acts which regularly are appropriated unto the bishop 
alone ; there is no reason to be given, but that in case of 
necessity, wherein all bishops were extinguished by death, 
or being fallen into heresy, should refuse to ordain any to 
serve God in his true worship ; but that presbyters, as they 
may do all other acts, whatsoever special challenge bish- 
ops in ordinary course make unto them, might do this also. 
Who then dare condemn all those worthy ministers of God 



166 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

that were ordained by presbyters in sundry churches of the 
worlds at such times as bishops in those parts where they 
lived, opposed themselves against the truth of God, and 
persecuted such as professed it. 

" But seeing bishops and presbyters are in the power of 
order the same ; as when the bishops of a whole church or 
country fall from the faith, or consent to them that so do, 
the care of the church is devolved to the presbyters re- 
maining catholick ; and as in the case of necessity they 
may do all other things regularly reserved to bishops only, 
(as Ambrose showeth, that the presbyters of Egypt were 
permitted in some cases to confirm the baptized, which 
thing also Gregorie after him durst not condemn,) so in 
case of general defect of the bishops of a whole country, 
refusing to ordain any but such as shall consent to their 
heresies, where there appeareth no hope of remedy or help 
from other parts of the church, the presbyters may choose 
out one among themselves to be chief, and so add other to 
their numbers by the imposition of his and their hands. 
This I have proved in my third book out of the authorities 
of Armachanus, and sundry other, of whom Alexander of 
Hales speaketh. To which we may add that w^hich Du- 
randus hath, where he saith : That Hierome seemeth to 
have been of opinion, that the highest power of consecration 
or order, is the power of a priest or eider. So that every 
priest^ in respect of his priestly power, may minister all sa- 
craments, CONFIRM the baptized, and give all orders : 
howsoever for the avoiding of the peril of schism, it was 
ordained that one should be chosen to have a pre-eminence 
above the rest, who was named a bishop, and to whom it 
was peculiarly reserved to give orders, and to do some 
such other things. And afterward he saith : That Hierome 
is clearly of this opinion."* 

One observation more shall conclude this section 
Some may suppose, that if the power of orders, or ordain- 
ing, does not belong solely to bishops, and so constitute 
them by divine right a superior order, yet that the power 
o^ jurisdiction does. By jurisdiction is meant the bishop's 
power of governing and judging both ministers and people. 
As to the fact, the bishops of the Church of England have 
this power each in his own diocess ; but by what right 

* Dr. Field Oft, the Church, fol. ed.,pp. 155-157 and 704. Oxford, 1628. 



ON APOSTOLICAL saCCESSION. 167 

or law ? If episcopacy, as a superior order, with the 
high prerogatives claimed for it, be of divine right, this 
jurisdiction must also be of divine right : but if there 
should be express acknowledgment in the constitution of 
the Church of England that their jurisdiction is of merely 
HUMAN origin, this will be another clear proof that, ac- 
cording to this Church, bishops have, by divine right, none 
of these prerogatives over presbyters, but are by the Scrip- 
tures one and the same office. Whatever views may be 
entertained as to the Scriptural right of the king of Eng- 
land to be supreme head of the Church, it is certain the 
Church of England maintains it as a fact; and here we have 
only to do with facts. Noav the act of parliament in the 
twenty-sixth year of Henry VIIL, declares that the king 
" shall have full power and authority from time to time, to 
visits repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and 
amend such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts 
and enormities, whatsoever they be, which hy any manner 
of spiritual authority ox jurisdiction, ought or may lawfully 
be reformed." This was in 1535. According to the full 
power here given, commissions were issued to those who 
had bishoprics, giving them a license for their jurisdiction 
as bishops ; and they only held their jurisdiction on good 
behaviour, and at the king's pleasure. They are as fol- 
lows : — " Henry the YIII. king of England and France, 
defender of the faith, lord of Ireland, and, under Christ, 
supreme head of the Church on earth, to the reverend father 
in Christ, Edmund, bishop of London, peace, seeing all 
the authority of jurisdiction, and every kind of jurisdic- 
tion, as well that which is called secular, as that which is 
called ECCLESIASTICAL, emanates primarily from the kingly 
power as from a supreme head, &c. We, desiring to ac- 
cede to your humble supplication for this purpose, commit 
our office and authority to you in the manner and form 
hereafter described, and declare you to be licensed and 
appointed, therefore, to ordain to holy orders, &c. Also to 
make such visitations, &c., as the bishops of London, your 
predecessors, in past times, might exercise, by the laws of 
this realm, and not otherwise, &c. And to do every thing 
that in any way concerns episcopal authority and jurisdic- 
tion, over and above those things which are known to be 
^QTtimitted unto you by authority of the Scripture^ in our 



168 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Stead, name, and authority. Having great confidence in 
your sound doctrine, purity of conscience, integrity of life, 
and faithful industry in the performance of your duties, 
&c., WE LICENSE YOU, by thesc presents, during our plea- 
sure, &c., to answer before us as to your duty, at your 
bodily peril ; admonishing you in the mean time to exer- 
cise your office piously, holily, according to the rule of the 
gospel, and that you never at any time promote any one 
TO HOLY orders," &c., (that is, otherwise than is here 
directed.) " In witness whereof we have commanded 
these presents to be made and confirmed by our seal for 
ecclesiastical causes. Given November 12th, 1539, and 
thirty-first year of our reign." Now these commissions 
profess to direct in matters " besides and beyond what are 
known to belong to bishops in the Scripture." What are 
those matters ? The answer is plain as to the meaning 
of the commission, for it mentions — the ordination of 
ministers, episcopal visitation, and jurisdiction over minis- 
ters and people in that diocess. As bishops, none of these 
things belong to them any more than to any other minister, 
except by human authority. I am aware Bishop Burnet 
and others complain of the hardship of these commissions, 
and say that they v/ere laid aside afterward : this does not 
in the least alter the question of law and authority. By 
37th Henry VIII., cap. 17, it is enacted and declared, — 
" That archbishops, bishops, &c., have no manner oi juris- 
diction ecclesiastical, but by, under, and from his royal ma- 
jesty." These powers of the sovereign were renewed 
again as law in Edward YL, and in Elizabeth's reign; 
and they continue to be the law of the land, as to the 
Church of England, to the present day. 

The conclusion, then, as to the Church of England, is, 
that the divine right of bishops is 7io part of its constitu- 
tion ; but that presbyters and bishops are, by authority of 
the Scripture, one and the same office ; that presbyters 
have EQUAL divine right to ordain ; but that, as a human 
arrangement, the order of bishops is laioful : and that the 
Book of Ordination has " all things necessary for that pur- 
pose ; neither hath it any thing of itself superstitious or 
ungodly.'''"^ All this I believe ex animo. 

* Dr. Holland, king's professor of divinity at Oxford, says, ** That to 
affirm the office of bishop to be different from that of presbyter and 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 169 

How lamentable ! that any ministers of this Church, for- 
getting the principles of the reformers, and violating the 
spirit of the gospel, should weaken Protestantism and 
strengthen the hands of Popery, by insulting all other 
Protestant ministers as schismatics ; denouncing their ordi- 
nances as the offerings of Korah, Dathan, and Ahiram ; 
thus destroying the peace of all the Protestant churches 
in the world ! May Heaven soon lead them into more 
Christian, brotherly, and pacific views ! May all Protest- 
ant churches unite, on the basis of the Bible, and in the 
spirit of Christianity, to proclaim a pure gospel, and to 
bring in the Redeemer's kingdom over all the earth ! 



SECTION YHI. 

BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS THE SAME ORDER, SHOWN BY" 
THE TESTIMONY OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN 
THE WORLD. 

To hear some high Churchmen talk on this subject, a 
person would be led to think, that surely all the Christian 
churches in the world, ancient and modern, must have 
maintained that bishops are, by divine right, a distinct 
order, with powers and prerogatives of a very extraordinary 
and EXCLUSIVE character. How otherwise could it be, 
we should suppose, that men pretending to learning should 
dare to speak so pompously about them, and about the 
consequences of being blessed with such an order ? The 
only reasonable answer that can be given is, that they do 
not understand the subject. It has already been shown 
that the fathers did not maintain such a doctrine ; no 
council ever maintained it ; and we now proceed to show 
that no Christian church ever maintained this doctrine. 

The African church never maintained it ; as is clear by 
the case of the church of Alexandria, which was, at one 
time, one of the four or five great patriarchates into which 
the churches in the whole world were divided. Gregory 

superior to it, is most false ; contrary to Scripture, to the fathers, to 
the doctrines of the Church of England, yea, to the very schoolmen 
themselves." — Dr. Dioighfs Theology, vol. v, p. 184, 8vo. 

8 



170 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Nazianzen speaking, in his oration upon Athanasius, about 
the importance of the see of Alexandria, says, " It is as 
though you should say that its bishop is bishop of the whole 
ivorld" Tertullian, one of the most illustrious African 
fathers, teaches most expressly that bishops had no supe- 
riority by divine right : Jerome's testimony is decisive, as 
he lived so near to Egypt, having spent a great part of his 
life in Palestine. 

The Greek church never maintained the order of bishops 
by divine right : this is proved from the testimony of Fir- 
milian, bishop of Cesarea ; by the council of Ancyra, in 
the third century ; and from the epistle of the council of 
Nice. Theodoret, also, a Greek father in the fifth century, 
proves the same, as quoted in section iii. And there is 
no sufficient evidence, I believe, that the modern Greek 
church has decided differently from the ancient Greek 
church. 

Let us come to the Westeim church, as it is called, the 
Christian church in Europe ; and this as either included 
in the Latin church, or in those churches that have sepa- 
rated from that church. 

The Church of Rome never maintained such an order 
of bishops, by divine right, as our high Churchmen main- 
tain. We have seen the testimony of Jerome and Augus- 
tine, Vv^hose writings have had greater authority in that 
church than the writings of all the other fathers besides. 
Jerome's opinion, nay, his very words, were put into the 
canon law, the ecclesiastical law of that church : canon, 
Olim, dist. 95, et canon, Legimus, dist. 93. And John 
Semeca, a doctor of the canon law, in his Gloss or Com- 
ment on the law: " They say, indeed, that in thej^r^"^ age 
of the primitive church the names and offices of the bishops 
and presbyters were common ; but that in the second age 
of the primitive church, both the names and offices began 
to be distinguished.'^'' The canon, Legimus, dist. 93, con- 
tains Jerome's Epistle to Evagrius entire. The first chap- 
ter, under dist. 95, is, as we have said, in the very words 
of Jerome, as given at page 93 of this Essay. The sixth 
chapter is wholly taken from the treatise on the " Seven 
Degrees" found in Jerome's Works, as mentioned at 
page 92. It is as follows : " Behold, I declare that pres- 
byters have the power to perform the sacraments, even 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 171 

while their own bishops are standing at the altar. But, 
seeing it is written, * Let the presbyters be honoured with 
double honour, especially such as labour in the word of 
God,' it is the duty of presbyters to preach ; their blessing 
edifies the people ; confirmation by them is suitably per- 
formed ; it is proper for them to give the communion ; it 
is necessary that they should visit the sick, pray for the 
weak, and perform all the sacraments which God has given. 
Let none of the bishops, inflated^ on this account, with the 
envy of a diabolical temptation, show their wrath in the 
church, if the presbyters sometimes exhort the people ; if 
they preach in the churches ; if, as it is written, they bless 
the people. To any one that opposes these things, I would 
say, Let him who forbids the presbyters what God has 
commanded them, tell me, who is greater than Christ ? or 
what is to be preferred to his body and to his blood ? If 
the presbyter consecrates Christ, when he pronounces the 
blessing upon the sacrament on the altar of God ; is not 
he worthy to bless the people, who is worthy even to con- 
secrate Christ ? It is by your bidding, O ye most unjust 
bishops! that the presbyter, as to the laity and the women, 
has been deprived of the office of giving God's benediction 
— has lost the very use of his tongue — has no confidence 
to preach — has been mutilated of every part of his powers 
and authority — nothing but the hare name of a presbyter is 
left — the plenitude and perfection of his consecration are 
taken away- Is this your honour, O ye bishops, thus to 
bring ruin upon the flock ? For when by your power you 
take away from the pastors the privilege of performing 
with diligence what God has commanded, contagion and 
destruction spread among the flocks, and you bring evil 
upon the Lord's inheritance, while you wish alone to be 
great in the church. We read, that, in the beginning, 
presbyters were commanded to rule in the afl^airs of the 
church — presbyters were sometimes in the councils of 
bishops ; for presbyters themselves, as we read, were called 
bishops : accordingly it is written to a bishop, * Neglect 
not the gift which is in thee by the laying on of my hands ;' 
and, in another place, to presbyters, ' (The Holy Ghost,) 
who has made you bishops to rule the church of God.^ But 
proud bishops hate to have this name given to presbyters : 
they do not approve of what Christ approved, who washed 



172 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the feet of the disciples — who was baptized by John, 
though John exclaimed that he needed to be baptized by 
him. I write these things for this purpose, that if the 
ERROR OF PAST TIME camiot he remedied, humility at least 
may at present be preserved, that presbyters may perform 
those things in their churches, which are done at Rome, 
in the East, in Italy, in Crete, in Cyprus, in Africa, in 
Illyricum, in Spain, in Britain, and even in part of Gaul ; 
and which is done in every place where that humility 
continues which takes place in heaven, (a matter still 
higher,) where the seats of angels have their due order." 
■The writer of this Essay expressly disclaims any intention 
by this quotation to reflect upon all bishops, as unrighteous 
or tyrannical men. Many bishops, in different ages, have 
been truly men of God. His chief object in the quotation 
is to show the views of the Romish Church on the subject 
of episcopacy by divine right, at the period when this part 
of the canon law was composed. Episcopacy, in general, 
is certainly here declared to be an error of past times : 
and bishops, many of them, are spoken of as usurping 
tyrants. Presbyters are spoken of as despoiled by them 
of the authority and usefulness which, by divine right, truly 
belonged to presbyters. 

Part of the seventh chapter of the council of Hispala, in 
Spain, in the seventh century, is worth translating : — " It 
has been reported to us that Agapius, bishop of Cordova, 
has frequently appointed village bishops (chor-episcopi) 
or presbyters {who hy the canons are both one) to consecrate 
altars and churches without the presence of the bishop. 
Which, indeed, is not to be wondered at, principally for 
this reason, that the bishop is a man ignorant oi ecclesiastical 
discipline. Therefore it ought to be determined unani- 
mously, that no such license should be used among us, 
knowing that the appointment and consecration of an altar 
is not allowed either to a presbyter or to a village bishop. 
For in the sacred Scriptures, the Lord commanded that 
Moses alone should erect the altar in thq tabernacle, that 
he alone should anoint it, because he was the high priest, 
as it is written concerning him, ' Moses and Aaron among 
his priests.' Therefore that which the head priests alone 
might do, of whom Moses and Aaron were types, the 
preshytersy who resemble Aaron's sons, ought not to pre- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 173 

sume to seize. For though in the dispensation of the sa- 
cred mysteries most things are common to presbyters and 
bishops, yet some by the authority of the Old Testament^ 
and some by the authority of the emperors laws, and by 
ecclesiastical rules, the presbyters know to be forbidden to 
them, as the consecration of presbyters, deacons, and vir- 
gins, the erection of an altar, the benediction and the unc- 
tion ; seeing it is not permitted to them to give the bene- 
diction to the church, nor to consecrate altars, nor to lay 
on hands in baptism, nor to give the Holy Ghost to such as 
are converted from heresy, nor to make the unction or holy 
ointment, nor to sigm the forehead of the baptized with the 
holy ointment, nor even to reconcile a penitent publicly in 
the time of mass, nor to give recommendatory letters. For 
all these things are disallowed to presbyters, because they 
are not in the highest part of the priesthood, lohich, hy the 
command of the canons, belongs only to bishops.^'' Here 
are distinctions enough, with a witness, between bishops 
and presbyters. And here is a true history of them : — an 
argument from a type or figure in the Old Testament ; 
eccksiastical rules ; and the emperor's laws. But do 
these make the distinction to be of divine rip-ht ? The 
council expressly declares the very reverse, and that it is 
" by the command of the canons." Besides, presbyters 
and chor-episcopi, village bishops are treated as the same : 
one law is applied to both. Now Bishop Taylor and 
others grant that village bishops had the power to ordain, 
&c., and that such regulations only limit its exercise ; the 
same is true as to presbyters. And the author of the Trea- 
tise on the Seven Degrees, above mentioned, gives the 
same account. He says, " The ordination of clergymen, 
the consecration of virgins, the dedication of altars, and 
the preparation of the chrism, were reserved to the bishop 
SOLELY yir the purpose of giving him authority or honour, 
lest the discipline of the church, being separated among 
many, divisions should arise between the ministers, and 
should produce general scandal. For this cause also the 
election of bishops has lately been transferred to the me- 
tropolitan ; and while this high power is given to the me- 
tropolitan, the same power is taken away from others ; so 
that the bishops themselves, as high priests, begin to feel 
another placed over them ; and this not as a matter of divine 



174 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

right, but as a matter of necessity, arising from the nature 
of the case." Here the ground of the distinction between 
bishops and presbyters is considered to be the same as 
that between bishops and archbishops, that is to say, it is 
merely an ecclesiastical, prudential arrangement. 

Mr. Johnson, the translator of the canons of the univer- 
sal church, a strong succession advocate, and a man of 
great learning, says, " That opinion, that the order of 
priests and bishops was the same, prevailed in the Church 
of Rome ^ot four or jive ages [centuries] before the Refor- 
mation."* Thus, then, we have the history of the matter 
in this church up to the Reformation. Jerome determines 
the point in his day, A. D. 400. The canon law does the 
same, A. D. 1200. The learned Mr. Johnson, an unex- 
ceptionable witness with high Churchmen, settles the point 
for five hundred years before the Reformation. Bishop 
Burnet, too, we have seen, says, that at the Reformation 
it was " the common style of that age to reckon bishops 
and priests the same office T 

Finally, the council of Trent positively refused to ac- 
knowledge the doctrine of the order of bishops by divine 
right. They decreed that the hierarchy was of divine 
right, and that bishops were in fact above presbyters ; but 
the pope's legates, and all who more especially belonged to 
the court of Rome, most strenuously opposed the doctrine of 
divine right of bishops. In these matters we only speak to 
facts ; and the facts are as above stated, as any one may 
see by consulting the acts and history of the council. 

It perhaps may surprise some, that we so decidedly 
charge the succession scheme as semi-popery, when in the 
doctrine of the divine right of bishops, an essential part of 
the scheme of our high Church divines, the Church of 
Rome differs from them. The reader has only to consider, 
that the same end may be aimed at by different means. 
This is the case here. We said, in the commencement 
of this Essay, that these high Church divines, " come for- 
ward to effect that in the Protestant church, which Popery 
endeavours to effect as to the church universal." Their 
machinery is different. The Popery of Rome created a 
one-headed pope : our high Church divines try to create a 
many 'headed pope. The Popery of both has one mind — 

* Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. ii, Pref.^ p. 54. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 175 

bigoted, exclusive, intolerant, and persecuting. All the ju- 
risdiction of Popery centres in the pope. He imparts of his 
FULNESS to the bishops ; they swear fidelity to the pope. 
They support the pope, and the pope supports them ; and 
altogether they unite to bind the church in fetters of iron. 
Our succession-men place all authority by divine right in 
the bishops. The bishops, according to this scheme, are to 
reward them, by giving them the exclusive right to minis- 
ter the ordinances of Christ. They are to support each 
other, in order to form a chain to bind in Popish bondage 
the Protestant church, or else to excommunicate from the 
pale of Christianity such as bend not to their authority. Pre- 
vention is better than cure ; and it is hoped that this hum- 
ble effort, under God's blessing, may do something to ex- 
pose the Popery lying at the root of the scheme it opposes. 
The authors of the Oxford Tracts for the Times are Eng- 
lish Jesuits, and aim to accomplish for Anglican Popery, 
what the Roman Jesuits do for Roman Popery. There is a 
conspiracy : it is disguised Popery ! May Heaven scatter 
their counsel, and cause the gospel to run and be glorified! 

We have shown that the orio^inal reformed Church of 
England gives no sanction to this semi-popish scheme : 
see section vii. 

The Lutheran church never maintained the divine right 
of bishops. The archbishop of Cologn joined them, but 
they never used his episcopal powers to give an order of 
jure divino bishops to their church. They retain the name, 
in some places, but they have no jure divino episcopal or- 
dinations. About 1528, says Playnes, in his translation 
of Melchior Adam's Life of Luther, " by the advice of Lu- 
ther, and by the command of John the Elector, was ordain- 
ed a visitation of the churches in Saxony." In 1528 Lu- 
ther put forth an" Institution of Visiters." Haynes quotes 
Luther, saying, '' We are visiters, that is, bishops, and we 
find poverty and scarcity everywhere. The Lord send 
forth workmen into his harvest. Amen." And in another 
place to Spalatinus, " Our visitation goeth on ; of what mise- 
ries are we eye witnesses ; and how often doe we remem- 
ber you, when w^e find the like or greater miseries in that 
harsh-natured people of Voytland ! Let us beseech God to 
be present with us, and that he would promote the work 
of his poore bishops, who is our best and most faithful Bishop 



176 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

against all the arts and forces of Satan. Amen." And 
again, — " In our visitation in the territories of Wittemberg, 
we find as yet all pastors agreeing with their people, but 
the people not so forward for the word and sacraments."* 
again, " Luther wrote thus to Melancthon : ' Concerning 
obedience to be performed to the bishops, as in jurisdiction 
and the common ceremonies, I pray you have a care, look 
to yourself, and give no more than you have, lest ye should 
be compelled again to a sharper and more dangerous warre 
for the defence of the gospel. I know that you always 
except the gospel in those articles : but I fear lest after- 
ward they should accuse us of breach of our covenant, 
and inconstancy, if we observe not what they please. For 
they will take our gr aunts in the large, larger, largest sense, 
and hold their own strictly, and as strictly as they can. In 
briefe, I wholly dislike this agitation for concord in doc- 
trine, as being a thing utterly impossible, unlesse the pope 
will abolish his popedom.' "f Luther was no more than a 
presbyter, but he ordained their first bishop. "About 
this time the bishoprick of Neoburgh, by Sala, was voyd ; 
there Nicolas Amsdorf, a divine born of a noble family, was| 
enstalled by Luther at the command of the elector of Sax- 
ony, the patron of that diocese ; and Julius Pflugius, whom 
the canons of the colledge chose, was refused. Luther 
placed him in the bishoprick Jan. 20, A. D. 1542. This 
thing, as many conceived, gave occasion to other stirres, 
and very much offended the emperour, who much affected 
Pflugius for divers respects. Of this we see more in 
Amsdorf 's Life. After this Luther wrote a book in the 
German tongue, and call'd it ' The Pattern of the Inau- 
guration of a true Christian Bishop.' "^ 

" The gospel," says one of the Lutheran articles, " gives 
to those that are set over the churches a command to teach 
the gospel, to remit sins, to administer the sacraments, and 

^ Page 71, 4to. London, 1641. t Pages 83, 84. 

X Melchior Adam, in the Life of Amsdorf, mentions this matter as 
follows: "On the 20th day of January, 1542, the elector Frederic, 
and J. Ernestus, the brother dukes of Saxony, being present, in the city 
of Neoburg, by Sala, this noble and unmarried person [Amsdorf] was 
ordained bishop by Luther : Nicolas Medler, the pastor of Neoburg, 
George Spalatinus, the pastor of Aldenburg, and Wolfgang Steinias, 
another pastor, joining with Luther in the imposition of hands ^ 

§ Page 102. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 177 

jurisdiction also. And by the confession of all, even our 
adversaries, 'tis manifest, that tins power is, by divine right, 
ccmmon to all that are set over the churches, whether they 
be called pastors, or presbyters, or bishops." 

" But one thing made a difterence afterward between 
bishops and presbyters, viz., ordination, because 'twas or- 
der'd that one bishop should ordain ministers in several 
churches : but since bishops and pastors are not different 
degrees by divine right, 'tis manifest, that an ordination, 
performed by a pastor in his own church, is valid ; and 
that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those 
that are guiltj of manifest crimes does belong to all 
pastors."* 

The party of high Churchmen have lately republished a 
tract of Miu. Charles Leslie, the nonjuror, on episcopacy, 
in a periodical called " The Voice of the Church." In 
this tract, Leslie says, the Lutherans " still retain epis^ 
copact/.'^ Now could such men as Leslie, and can such 
men as Dr. Hook and the Oxford Tract-men, be ignorant 
of the principles and facts just stated about the Lutheran 
church ? Can they be ignorant, therefore, that the episco- 
pacy of the Lutheran church, and the episcopacy which 
they advocate, have little in common but the name ; and 
that these two systems of episcopacy totally differ in all 
the great points for .which high Churchmen most strenu- 
ously contend ? If they are not ignorant of these things, 
where is the honesty of leading the public mind astray by 
the mere ambiguities of language ? It is painful to be under 
the necessity of exposing these dishonourable proceed- 
ings. But these gentlemen must blame themselves. The 
fault is their own ; and it is but justice to the public to 
expose it.t 

* Abridgment of Mr. James Owen's Plea, pp. 40, 41. 

t The Rev. J. Sinclair has occupied about ten pages of his work on 
Episcopal or Apostolical Succession, with the sophistical ainbiguity 
noticed in the text : he has placed it in front of all his arguments, as 
though he had nothing better to produce. In this attempt he tries to 
bring in the Lutheran church, Calvin, Beza, &c., for the support of 
episcopacy by divine right. The reader has seen the case of the Lu- 
theran church. The Augsburgh Confession expressly declares, that, 
" according to the gospel, or jure divino, no jurisdiction belongs to 
bishops as bishops.''^ Beza acknowledges bishops, so does the New 
Testament. He distinguishes them into three kinds, — Scriptural, 

8* , 



178 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

The French church, and the reformed church in Germany, 
both maintain equality of bishops and presbyters. The 
synod of Dort, representing the reformed church of Ger- 
many, adopted the confession of faith belonging to the 
Belgic church. The thirty-first article contains this state- 
ment : "As regards the ministers of the divine word, they 
have everywhere the same power and authority." The 
pastors and seniors of the French churches, met in national 
council at Vitry in 1682, subscribed the same confession. 
King James sent some English bishops and divines to the 
synod of Dort. They gave their suffrages to this confes- 
sion, along with the rest of the divines, as is clearly stated 
in session 146. This consent was caugffl at by some to 
impugn the very existence of an order of bishops at all in 
the Church of England, even as a mere prudential or 
ecclesiastical arrangement. Carlton, bishop of Chiches- 
ter, who was one of those that had been present at the 
synod of Dort by the order of King James, replied to this 
misinterpretation of their consent to that article, and 
showed that he and his colleagues had objected to such a 
construction of the sense of the articles as would encourage 
opposition to all exercise of superintendency by one class 
of ministers over others. The members of the synod with 
whom he conversed declared they wished for some such 
superintendency as they supposed the English bishops exer- 
cised, as calculated to promote good order, and to prevent 
divisions in the church. Yet they all, the English bishops 
and divines too, gave their votes for the confession just 
quoted, that, "as regards the ministers of the divine word, 
they have everywhere the scmie poiver and authority. ^^ The 
case seems to be this :* they all believed that, by divine 
right, all ministers of the divine word, bishops and pres- 
byters, were equal ; but that, as a prudential ecclesiastical 

human, and anticliristian : high Church bishops he classes among the 
last. See references to him, and to Calvin, &;c., in the following sec- 
tion. What delusion, to pretend the authority of these reformers for 
such an episcopacy as Mr. Sinclair and his high Church brethren 
maintain ! 

* So Bishop Carlton, in his Treatise of Jurisdiction, p. 7, quoted by 
Calamy in his Defence of Moderate Nonconformity : " The poicer of 
order, by all writers that I could see, even of the Church of Rome, is 
understood to be immediately from Christ given to all bishops and 
priests alike in their consecration." — Calamy, vol. i, p. 104, edit. 1703. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 179 

arrangement, an order of bishops, as superintendents over 
other ministers, was not antiscriptural, nor ungodly ; but 
calculated to promote order and peace in the church, and 
to prevent divisions. This has certainly been the general 
opinion and practice of the church from the beginning of 
the second century, up to this day. The church is placed 
between two evils — the tyranny of the people, and the 
tyranny of ministers. The divine plan favours neither. 
The Scriptures lay down only general principles, and 
leave the details of church government to every society ; 
and while nothing is done contrary either to the letter or 
the spirit of Scripture, by either ministers or people, we 
may approve of all, and leave all to the full exercise of 
their own choice. Whoever takes upon him to condemn 
those who keep to these limits, is an enemy to the peace 
of the church. 

It is a plain Scriptural principle that ministers are to 
govern the people ; — that they are to govern according to 
the letter and spirit of their commission ; — and that, while 
they so govern, the people are hound by the authority of 
the word of God to submit to their government, and to 
honour them as those who watch for their souls ; but 
when ministers violate the law of their commission, their 
authority so far ceases, and the people are, in that propor- 
tion, free from the obligation to obey them. A well-guarded 
superintendency of one class of ministers over other minis- 
ters, if determined upon by the church, is allowable ; and 
is a useful arrangement. All such plans must be judged 
by their own character and administration. Every reflect- 
ing reader will equally admire the divine wisdom In what 
is defined, and in what is undefined. What is defined, 
guards against anarchy ; wdiat is undefined, guards against 
tyranny. May Heaven grant both ministers and people 
to see and preserve their privileges, without abusing the 
same, either to anarchy or tyranny ! 

The Remonstrants perfectly acquiesced in the above 
principles, as may be seen in their Apology by Epis- 
copius.* 

The Walde?ises had the came principles. There are 
two reasons for mentioning this remarkable people here. 
The first is, an occasional pretence by some Churchmen, 

* Episcopi 0pp., vol. ii, par. seciind., p. 236, fol., ed. 1665. 



180 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 

that they have had their order of episcopacy by divine right 
through this church ; another is, a feeble and ineffectual 
attempt of some Moravian historians to claim for that 
church some superiority on the same ground. In " An 
Account of the Doctrine, Manners, Liturgy, and Idiom of 
the Unitas Fratrum, [that is, the Moravians,] taken from, 
and comprising the Supplement [dedicated to the Church 
of England] of the Vouchers to the Report of the Com- 
mittee of the Honourable the House of Commons, concern- 
ing the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, lately printed in 
folio," London, 1749, 8vo., we have a long extract from a 
letter of Jablonsky, a Moravian bishop, to Archbishop 
Wake. In this he quotes Comenius, another Moravian 
bishop and historian, in proof that " the Bohemian Brethren, 
arising from the ashes of Huss, regularly received the 
episcopal order — anno 1467," as folio v^s : " The Brethren's 
chief concern was about pastors for the souls : whence 
they should get them, when those they had at present 
should decease. It was too uncertain a thing, to wait till 
some of the Roman ordination, for the love of truth, should 
come over to them. iVnd they remembered, that the fore- 
mentioned primate of Bohe?ma, Archbishop Rokyzane, had 
often testified that all must be renewed from the bottom. 
Therefore an ordination was to be begun at home, by that 
power which Christ had given his church. But they were 
afraid that it might not be a regular ordination if a pres- 
byter should create a presbyter, and not a bishop. At 
length, in the year 1467, the chief persons from Bohemia 
and Moravia, to the number of about seventy, met together 
in a Village near Richnoiv, called Lhota ; and, having 
poured fourth many prayers and tears to God, that he 
would vouchsafe to show whether he approved of their 
design, they resolved to inquire the divine will by lot. 
They chose, therefore, by vote, nine men from among 
them ; and, having put into the hands of a child tioelve 
pieces of paper folded up, they bid him distribute to those 
nine men. Now nine of the papers were empty, and only 
on three stood written — It is : so that it was possible they 
all might get empty papers, which would have imported a 
negative will of God. But so it was, that the three written 
ones '^came into the hands of three among them, viz., 
Matthias Kuhnwald, a very pious man ; Thomas Przelau* 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 181 

cius, a learned man ; and Elias Krzeiiowius, a man of sin- 
gular prudence. These found Stephen, bishop of the 
Waldenses, who sendmg for the other bishop, and some 
of the ministers, declared to them their descent from Con- 
stantine's time ; and also the articles of their doctrine, and 
the dreadful sufferings they had undergone in Italy and 
France ; and having heard again, with approbation and 
congratulation, the account which ours gave of their with- 
holding themselves as well from the Calixtines also now, 
as formerly from the pope; and, finally, to enable these 
three ministers to ordain, they created them bishops by im- 
position of hands, and sent them back in peace." This 
is Comenius's account, who died 1670. Then Jablonsky 
speaks of the succession of these bishops in " The Unity," 
as having " gone on uninterruptedly from the first begin- 
ning of the Unity till 1650;" and he proceeds with an 
account of the succession till the time of writing to Arch- 
bishop Wake. At the close of his letter, the mention of 
the " episcopal succession" occurs three times in two 
pages ; and at page 135 the Church of England is spoken 
of as " their only episcopal sister in the Protestant world." 
Arvid Gradin, a person of great trust, and employed on 
the most important embassies among the Moravians, thus 
briefly describes this affair : " Being solicitous about a 
regular and apostolical ordination of pastors, there met in 
the year 1467, out of all Bohemia and Moravia grave, and 
pious men, about seventy in all, who sent three of their 
number, being marked out by lot, to Stephen, bishop of 
the Waldenses, then under banishment in Austria. He 
having called together the other bishops, his colleagues, 
consecrated these three persons, who were ministers and 
teachers remarkable for their piety and learning, bishops, 
by imposition of hands : their names were Matthias of 
Cunewald, Thomas Praelautensis, and Elias Chrzenovitz." 
He then speaks of " Comenius complaining that he, like 
Elias, was alone left remaining, without any hopes of 
handing down the apostolical succession which was lodged 
in him; and accordingly he wrote, in the year 1660, a 
very melancholy lamentation, and dedicated it to the English 
Church." This, and much more in the same authors, 
shows a disposition unduly to magnify episcopal ordina- 
tion and succession. Indeed I think that both Comenius 



182 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and Jablonsky really believed in the divine right of epis- 
copacy, as did many divines of th^ Church of England in 
the times of Comenius — times of much high Churchism in 
England. It was well for the Brethren that the truth of 
the matter was not so ; otherwise the church of God had 
perished among the Bohemians when Comenius died, for 
Bishop Holmes informs us in the work noticed below, that 
the succession expired in that branch at the death of Come- 
nius, and was not renewed again for nearly one hundred 
years, viz., in 1735. 

However, since the publication of the first edition of 
this Essay, I have received a candid and excellent letter 
on the subject of Moravian episcopacy, from the Rev. 
Benjamin SeifFerth, a Moravian minister at Kimbolton. 
From this I am happy to learn that the Moravians do not 
hold episcopacy to be of divine right. Mr. SeifFerth refers 
in proof of this, among other authorities, to the " History of 
the United Brethren," by the Rev. John Holmes of Ful- 
neck, Yorkshire, who is a bishop of the Moravian church. 
At pages 50 to 53, vol. i, the Rev John Holmes gives the 
following account of the matter of sending to this Stephen, 
the supposed bishop of the Waldensian church, for episco- 
pal ordination : — 

" A most important subject of deliberation, both at their 
synods and at other times, was how to maintain a regular 
succession of ministers, when those w^ho now exercised 
the ministry among them, and who had previously been 
ordained among the Calixtines, were dead. For the pur- 
pose of coming to a final decision on this point, a synod 
was convened in 1467, and met in the village of Lhota, in 
the house of a person of the name of Duchek. Seventy 
persons were assembled at it, consisting of ministers, 
noblemen, scholars, citizens, and peasants, deputed by the 
several congregations of the Brethren in Moravia and 
Bohemia. 

" The synod was opened by fasting, prayer, and reading 
the Scriptures. After much deliberation, they came to a 
unanimous resolution to follow the advice of Lupacius and 
others, and to elect their ministers from their own body. 
With the example of the election of Matthias before them, 
(Acts i, 15-26,) who was appointed by lot, they conceived 
that they were not acting contrary to Scripture by adopting 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 183 

the same mode, and they reposed implicit confidence in 
the Lord, who alone hath the disposal of the lot, (Prov. 
xii, 33,) that, in a case of such emergency as the present, 
which involved such important consequences to their 
whole church, he would counsel them according to his 
will. They first nominated twenty men, from among 
whom nine were chosen, being in their opinion duly quali- 
fied for the office of the ministry^ men of approved piety and 
irreproachable conduct, and possessing a thorough know- 
ledge of divine truth, and much practical experience. Of 
this number they determined that three should be ap- 
pointed hy lot for the ministerial office. Being thus agreed 
on preliminaries, they prepared twelve slips of paper, on 
three of which they wrote the word est, \this is the man,] 
and left the other nine blank. All the twelve slips of pa- 
per were then rolled up, put into a small vase, and mixed 
together. 

" Hereupon Gregory addressed the assembly, admonish- 
ing them to be fully resigned to the direction and will of 
God, our heavenly Father, to whom they had referred the 
decision, whom of these nine men he chose to become 
ambassadors of his Son in the church. He encouraged 
them confidently to expect that God would hear and an- 
swer their prayer. After this they repeated their suppli- 
cations to the Lord, entreating him so to overrule their 
present proceedings, that the affirmative lot inscribed with 
the word est, might be received by such only of the nine 
men, previously nominated, as he himself designed to ap- 
f point to the ministry, or if none of the present candidates 
were approved by him, he would cause each of them to 
receive a blank, or negative lot. Prayer being ended, they 
called in a little boy, directing him to hand one of the slips 
of paper to each of the nine men, who gave them unopened 
to other members of the synod. On opening the papers 
it was faund, that the three inscribed with est had been 
received by Matthias of Kunewalde, Thomas of Presche- 
lauz, and Elias of Kreschenow. The whole assembly 
now joined in a solemn act of thanksgiving to God, joyfully 
receiving these three men as pastors and teachers, and 
promising them obedience by giving them the right hand 
and the kiss of peace. The transaction was closed with 
the celebration of the Lord's supper. 



184 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

" The Brethren, however, soon found that the work was 
not yet complete. Li their own estimation^ the appointment- 
of these men for the ministry of the gospel^ in the manner 
described, loas sufficiently valid ; but they knew it required 
something more to give it equal sanction with the religious 
public. They required regular ecclesiastical ordination. 
In order to discuss this important subject, another synod 
was convened before the end of the year. In this assem- 
bly two questions were principally agitated. 

" The first was, whether ordination by a number of pres- 
hyters was equally valid icith that performed by a bishop? 
The decision of the synod was to this effect: — That pres- 
byterian ordination loas consonant to apostolic practice^ 
(1 Tim. iv, 14,) and the usage of the primitive churchy 
which might be proved from the writings of the primitive 
fathers ; consequently the newly elected ministers might 
be ordained by those now exercising the sacred functions 
of the gospel among them, and who had previously been 
Calixtine clergymen in pries fs orders. But, as for many 
ages no ordination had been deemed valid in the reigning 
church, unless performed by a bishop, they resolved to use 
every possible means for obtaining episcopal ordination; 
that their enemies might thus be deprived of every pretext 
for discrediting the ministry among them. 

" This decision involved the second question, which 
was, to what regularly organized community of Christians 
the synod might look for episcopal ordination. There 
could in reality exist but one opinion on this subject. For 
it was highly improbable, that any bishops connected with 
the Romish Church would transfer this privilege to the 
Brethren ; and besides this church, they knew only one 
other Christian commimity, to which they might apply with 
any hope of success. This was the Waldensian church. 
Several circumstances encouraged the Brethren to apply in 
this quarter. The Waldenses had existed for a long period 
as a distinct body of Christians, they constituted a regularly 
organized society, tracing the succession oi their bishops 
from the times of the apostles ; they had on a former oc- 
casion come to the assistance of the Brethren, and now had 
several congregations in Austria, served by their own 
bishops and ministers. 

'' Conformably to these resolutions of the synod, they 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 185 

elected three of their ministers, who were already in 
priesVs orders^ and sent them to the Waldensian bishop, 
Stephen. Having informed him of the object of their visit, 
the state of the unity of the Brethren, and the transactions 
of the synod, he received them with demonstrations of the 
most cordial joy ; and in his turn related the leading events 
in the history of the Waldenses, and gave them an account 
of their constitution, and the succession of their bishops. 
Hereupon he ordained these three presbyters bishops of 
the Brethren's church, with imposition of hands, being 
assisted by another bishop, and in presence of the 
elders. Of these three first bishops of the Brethren's 
church, Melchior Bradacius is the only one whose name 
has been handed down to posterity. He had from the 
very commencement of the church of the Brethren ren- 
dered it essential service, and merited an honourable dis- 
tinction. Of the other two, one had previously exercised 
the ministry among the Waldenses, and the other in the 
Romish Church. 

" Scarce had these bishops returned to their brethren, 
when it was resolved to convoke another synod. This 
assembly was principally occupied in amending and com- 
pleting their ecclesiastical constitution. In order to this, 
their first public act was the ordination of the three men, 
lately appointed by lot for the ministerial office, [to be] 
presbyters of the Brethren's church. One of them, Mat- 
thias of Kunewalde, was, before the close of the synod, 
consecrated bishop. They then proceeded to the appoint- 
ment of ten co-bishops, or conseniors, elected from the 
body of presbyters. No doubtful proof this of the increas- 
ing number of congregations and members, in connection 
with the Brethren's church." 

The reader will observe several discrepancies between 
these accounts. 

First, as to the opinion of the ancient Brethren about 
the real importance of episcopacy. Comenius says, — 
" They were afraidihdX it might not be a regular ordination 
if a presbyter should create a presbyter, and not a bishop." 
Arvid Gradin says they were solicitous about it. Mr. 
Holmes says that the synod, after agitating the subject, 
decided to this effect : " that preshyterian ordination was 
consonant to apostolic practice and the primitive church ;" 



186 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and that they adopted episcopal ordination for this special, 
prudential reason, viz., " that their enemies might thus he 
deprived of every pretext for discrediting the ministry among 
them^ 

Secondly, Comenius, seems to make the meeting at Lhota, 
in v/hich Matthias Kuhnwald, &c., were elected, to be 
called for the special purpose of sending these three men to 
Stephen for episcopal ordination ; so does Arvid Gradin : 
Bishop Holmes makes this meeting appoint these three 
men to the office of the ministry without any regard to 
episcopal ordination; for at the close of the meeting, 
" the whole assembly joined in a solemn act of thanks- 
giving to God, joyfully receiving these three men as their 
pastors and teachers, promising them obedience by giving 
them the right hand and kiss of peace." 

Thirdly, both Comenius and Arvid Gradin state that 
the three men who were sent to Stephen, and consecrated 
bishops by him, were Matthias Kuhnwald, Thomas Przel- 
aucius, and Elias Krzenowius : but Bishop Holmes says 
the men who went to Stephen, and were consecrated 
bishops, were not the same as those mentioned by Come- 
nius and Gradin ; but that one of their names was Melchior 
Bradacius ; and that the names of the other two have not 
been "handed dovv^n to posterity." Then another synod, 
a third, is convoked, according to Bishop Holmes, and 
" their first public act was the ordination of the three 
men, lately appointed by lot for the ministerial office, pres- 
byters of the Brethren's church. One of them, Matthias 
of Kunewalde, was, before the close of the synod, conse- 
crated bishop." 

I must confess that such very striking and material dis^ 
crepancies, among these highly respectable historians of 
the Brethren's church, on a point so important, makes me 
suspect that there is very little of perfectly authentic history 
on the subject of this matter about Stephen and the epis- 
copal ordination and succession. Perrin, who possessed 
better means of information than almost any other historian 
of the Waldenses, differs, as we shall soon see, from all 
these historians : according to him, the object of this, the 
journey, was different ; the persons sent were different, 
" two ministers and two elders ;" the transaction between 
Stephen and those persons was different : what they did, 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 187 

was not to give a succession of bishops, but *' in token of 
their great joy, and that holy society and correspondence, 
which they desired to hold with them, they blessed them, 
praying and laying their hands upon them." The whole 
episcopal colouring of this affair seems to have arisen from 
the high Church imagination of Comenius : Jablonsky 
gladly laid hold of it to propitiate Archbishop Wake, of 
the Church of England ; and hence others have followed 
in the same track. 

But let us direct our inquiry to the opinions and practice 
of the Waldenses. 

The Moravians profess to have their episcopacy from 
Stephen, whom ili3y call bishop of the Waldenses, in 1467. 
If the Waldense.^ neither taught this doctrine of high 
Church bishops, nor maintained such an order, then, of 
course, they could not give what they possessed not them- 
selves ; and all the authority derived from them for these 
pretensions comes to nothing. 

The doctrine of episcopacy by divine right, if true, is a 
matter of the very first importance ; all who held it, must 
have felt it to be so. Had the Waldenses held this, they 
would have spoken accordingly, in clear, strong, defined 
terms. Thus they did speak on all subjects they believed 
to be of great magnitude. It may then be taken as a sure 
rule, that, while the subject was constantly before them, 
and yet they never say clearly and strongly that the order 
of bishops, as having superintendency over presbyters, 
was by divine right ; — no, nor even mention such a thing 
as bishops among them ; that this negative evidence is 
proof they did not hold such a doctrine. But when they 
say much to the contrary, the proof strengthens still more. 
Besides, where were the Waldenses to get the notion ? 
We have seen that the Roman church never held it ; the 
Greek church never held it ; the Scriptures do not teach 
it ; — where then were they to get it 1 He that affirms 
they held it, must prove his affirmation. / deny it ; let it 
be proved. I might rest the matter safely here. 

The early and authentic writings of the Waldenses are 
very few ; yet some light may be obtained from them. 
Let the reader keep one thing in mind ; — viz., that suppose 
it could be proved, as a fact, that they had presbyters and 
bishops, still this would not prove that they held the high 



188 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Church notions of episcopacy hy^ divine right. Jerome 
constantly mentions bishops in the church, in his day, as a 
fact, but positively denies the divine right of episcopacy. 
The Church of Rome had the distinction between bishops 
and presbyters as di. fact, but never maintained the divine 
right of episcopacy. The reformers of the English 
Church established the distinction as a fact, but never 
maintained the divine right. By overlooking or denying 
this difference between the y^c^ and the divine right, many 
showy volumes have been written in favour of episcopacy, 
which are nothing but splendid sophisms from end to end. 
However, / douht the fact of the Waldenses having had 
bishops in their earliest history. I believe it cannot be 
proved from any of their documents, written before the time 
when the Moravians profess to have received the episco- 
pal order from them, viz., 1467. Any later evidence will 
be inconclusive. Much to the contrary certainly appears 
in their writings before that period, as the following 
extracts will show. They speak of ministers in the fol- 
lowing manner : — 

^' They who BJce pastors ought to preach to the people, 
and feed them often with divine doctrine ; and chastise the 
sinners with discipline. '^'^ Written A. D. 1100. "Feed- 
ing the flock of God, not for filthy lucre sake, or \nor~\ as 
having superiority over the clergy P " As touching 
orders, we ought to hold that order is called the power 
which God gives to man, duly to administer and dispense 
unto the church the word and sacraments. But we find 
nothing in the Scriptures touching such orders as they" 
(the Papists) *^ pretend, but only the custom of the church." 
Treatise of Antichrist, A. D. 1220. " All other ministerial 
things may be reduced to the aforesaid." Ibid. " Those 
that being partakers of the outward ceremonies, instituted 
ONLY by human inventio7is, do believe and hope to partake 
of the reality of pastoral cures and offices, if they be 
shaved or shorn like lambs, and anointed or daubed like 
walls,^^ &c. Having described the ceremonies then used 
by the Romish Church in confirmation, they say, " This is 
that which they call the sacrament of confirmation, which 
we find not instituted either by Christ, or his apostles — 
therefore such sacrament is not found needful to salvation ; 
whereby God is blasphemed, and which was introduced by 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 189 

the deviVs instigation^ to seduce the people, and to deprive 
them of the faith of the church, and that by silcJi means 
they might be induced the more to believe the ceremonies, 
and the necessity of the bishops.''^ Ibid. Speaking of '' pas- 
tors, ^^ loithout any distinction, they say, " We pastors do 
meet together once every year, to determine of our affairs 
in a general council. Among other powers and abilities 
which God hath given to his servants, he hath given au- 
thority to chuse leaders to rule the people, and to ordain 
elders [presbyters^ in their charges according to the diver- 
sity of the work, in the unity of Christ, which is proved 
by the saying of the apostle, in the first chapter of his 
Epistle to Titus : ' For this cause I have left thee in Crete, 
that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, 
and ordain eldiex^ [presbyters^ in every city as I have ap- 
pointed thee.' When any of us, the aforesaid pastors, 
falls into any gross sins, he is both excommunicated and 
prohibited to preach." Froin MSS. several hundred years 
before Luther or Calvin. Here it is remarkable, that their 
quotation from Titus stops, in such a way, as not to intro- 
duce the term bishop, occuring in the next verse. Why 
was this ? The following authorities will answer this ques- 
tion. Reinerus, the oldest authority on their tenets, as a 
historian, (having written about 1250,) says, " They consi- 
dered prelates to be but scribes and Pharisees ; that the 
pope and all the bishops were murderers, because of the 
wars they waged ; — that they were not to obey the bishops, 
but God only ; that in the church no one was greater than 
another ; that they hated the very name of prelate, as 
pope, bishop, ^^ &c. A similar statement is given by iEneas 
Sylvius : " The Roman bishop, and all bishops are equal. 
Among priests, or ministers of the gospel, there is no dif- 
ference. The name of a presbyter does not signify a 
dignity, but superior merit."* Mr. Faber quotes Pilich- 
dorf, saying, " They rejected the consecration of bishops, 
priests, churches, altars, &c."t 

Perrin remarks, that "the monk Reinerus reported 
many things concerning the vocation of the pastors of the 
Waldenses which are mere fictions : as that they had a 
greater bishop and two followers, whom he called the elder 

* Catalog. Test. Veritat., vol. ii. 

t Faber's Vallenses, p. 418. Lond., 1838. 



190 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

son, and the younger, and a deacon ; that he laid his hands 
upon others with a sovereign authority, and sent them where 
he thought good, like a pope.'''' 

"Against these impostures^ here follows what is found 
in their writings^ concerning the vocation of their pastors." 
He then gives the same account from their own imtings as 
we have given in the text ; but no account of an order of 
bishops is found in them. There is no distinction among 
them but w*hat age, or wisdom, or piety, might confer. 

Leorer oives the monk Reiner's account of this matter 
a little differently. He introduces him speaking of the 
barbes or pastors, saying, " that they had always among 
them some chief pastor, endowed w4th the authority"^ of a 
bishop, with two coadjutors, one of whom he called his 
eldest so?i, and the other his younger.^^j This is certainly 
more consistent with the other statements of Reiner. For 
how could he say they had a greater bishop, when he says 
they reprobated the very name of bishops ? But he might 
say that some chief pastor was endowed with the authority 
of a bishop, &c. Their own writings say, " The last re- 
ceived pastors must do nothing loithout the license of their 
seniors : as also those that are first are to undertake no- 
thing without the approbation of their companions, that 

* Mr. Faber, referring to Giliy's Excars. to Piedmont, p. 73, says, 
" The venerable Peyrani, when asked by Dr. Gilly, in the year 1823, 
whether, in the Vaudois church, there had not formerly been hisho-ps 
properly so called, readily answered, ' Yes : and I should now be styled 
bishop, for my office is virtually episcopal, but it would be absurd to 
retain the empty title, when we are too poor to support the dignity : 
and have little jurisdiction save that w^hich is voluntarily submitted to 
among ourselves : the term moderator is, therefore, now in use with us, 
as bemg more consistent with our humiliation.'' " Now, if riches and 
worldly dignities are necessary to bishops properly siXch, then there 
were none such in the earliest ages of the church, nor of the Waldenses 
either : the same remark would apply to any jurisdiction with civil 
power to coerce: neither the primitive church, nor the ancient Wal- 
denses, knew any thing about such jurisdiction. If the term bishop is 
an *' empty title" without these, something very different from primitive 
episcopacy must be meanfe by it. *' But," says Peyrani, " a moderator 
is virtually a bishop:" yes, as much so as a Lutheran superintendent 
or president. If this is what is meant by being ^'properly" a bishop, 
then many writers on these subjects express themselves very impro- 
perly. 

t See Peyran's Historical Defence of the Waldenses. Lond., 1826, 
Appendix, pp. 491, 492. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 191 

every thing may be done among us in order. We pastors 
do meet together once every year to determine of our 
affairs in a general council."* This is tke authority the 
seniors had, Such have the Lutheran and Wesleyari 
Methodist superintendents. Such had the bishops in the 
days of Cyprian. Yet the Waldenses do not appear to 
have had the xame of bishop. They are said to have 
HATED THE VERV XAME of bishop. ^lucli less, therefore, 
had they the doctrine of divine right. Indeed this account 
of Reiner's about a bishop with two coadjutors, an elder 
son and a younger son, seems not properly to be spoken of 
the Waldenses at all, but only of those who were properly 
Paulicians. See ]Mr. Faber's Yailenses, pp. 564, b^^. 

Hence it would appear that the Waldenses had no such 
name as bishop for any of their pastors, but that, according 
to the earliest historians who knew them best, " they 
reprobated the very name of bishops." Their pastors fed 
the flock, ruled the flock, and ordained others to the minis- 
try of the word. The Waldenses, then, had no doctrine 
of the divine right of bishops to govern the church, and to 
have the sole right of superintending and ordaining other 
ministers. The pretence of deriving the divine right of 
episcopacy through the Waldenses is, in truth, ivithout any 
solid foundation whatsoever. 

The Moravian bishops have no superintendency by the 
power of their order over all other ministers ; they are 
ordained by the authority of the elders or presb\^ers ; and 
are subject to the conference of presbyters. They, by the 
authority of the presbyters, ordain other ministers. This 
office of ordaining ministers is their only important differ- 
ence from presbyters ; and as they do it by the authority 
of the presbyters, it amounts to nothing but a mere eccle- 
siastical arrano^ement. 



Bishop Holmes says, (p. 25,) " The writings of Wick- 
lifFe were the means used by God for illuminating the mind 
of Huss. Wicklifie himself, on the subject of equality and 
of gospel ministers, e^'iAewXly foil owed the writings of the 
ancient Waldenses, for he sometimes uses their very icords. 
Now Wicklifte boldly affirms all gospel ministers to be 
equal by divine right. Huss followed him in this, and 
maintained the same point, as may be seen in Fox's Acts 

* Perrin, part ii, b. i, chap, 10. 



192 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and ]\fonuments.* He is charged with maintaining, and 
doth not deny it, that he saith, ' All priests are of like 
power; and affirmeth, that the reservations of the pope's 
casualties, the ordering [ordaining] of bishops, and the 
consecration of priests, were invented only for covetous- 
ness.' The Waldenses taught Wickliffe ; Wickliffe taught 
Huss : they all maintained equality, hy divine right, of all 
gospel minister s.'^^ 

All the reformers viewed the Bohemian Brethren's church 
government in this light. 

The English reformers did. A number of the Bohe- 
mians fled out of Germany into England in the time of 
Edward VI. They were incorporated, as a church, under 
John Alasco. Now the later Moravians reckon John 
Alasco as one of their bishops at that time. Let us hear 
Bishop Burnet's history of this matter : " This summer, 
John Alasco, with a congregation of Germans that fled 
from their country upon the persecution raised there, for 
not receiving the interim, was allowed to hold his assembly 
at St. Austin's, in London. The congregation was erected 
into a corporation. John Alasco was to be superintendent, 
and there were four other ministers associated with him. 
There were also three hundred and eighty of the congre- 
gation made denizens of England, as appears by the re- 
cords of their patents."! In the king's letters patent for 
their incorporation, the following is the style : — " Be uno 
superintendente et quatuor verhi ministris erigimus, creamus, 
ordinamus, et fundamus ^'' &c. — " We erect, create, ordain, 
and found this church, under one superintendent and four 
ministers of the word." Would Alasco, who wanted neither 
talents nor courage to defend himself, have submitted to 
the degradation (as a thorough Episcopalian would have 
supposed it) of being stripped of his dignity in a solemn 
deed of incorporation, and made a mere superintendent ? 
Would not the same reasoning hold as to the opinion of 
the other ministers, and the whole church, upon the sub- 
ject? The word superintendent is repeated ten times over 
in these documents ; but never the word bishop as applied 
to Alasco, or to any minister of the Bohemian church. 

The Rev. Benjamin Seiflerth, in the letter before men- 
tioned, speaking of John Alasco, thinks I am in an error 

* Vol i, p. 791, &c., ed. 1641, folio. f Vol. ii, part i. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 193 

in supposing that the latter Moravian historians reckon 
him as one of their bishops. He says, " Count Zinzen- 
dorf, indeed, fell into this error ; but I believe it has been 
acknowledo^ed to be an error. Holmes is not charo^eable 
with it ; nor, as far as I am aware, are any of our writers : 
and Comenius, and especially Regenvolscius, show that 
a Lasco was not even a member of the Brethren's church, 
though a warm friend to it." I have given Mr. SeifFerth's 
statement. Now it seems Count Zinzendorf believed 
a Lasco, or Alasco, belonged to the Moravians ; and the 
highly authoritative work above quoted, taken from the 
Vouchers presented to the House of Commons, and indeed 
to both houses of parliament, considers the transaction in 
Edward's time to have been with the Brethren's churchy 
and of course with a Lasco as its chief minister. See 
p. 134 of that work. And, in a note on the same page, 
they speak of " one of our [Moravian] bishops having been 
in the commission for reforming ecclesiastical laws in 
England. We cannot forbear giving the honoured reader 
two of the most remarkable passages of our said Bishop 
John a Lascd's Preface to the Liturgy, for his Congrega- 
tion at Austin Friars," in 1550 ; a similar statement, as to 
his being a Moravian minister, is made in a note at p. 108 
— " This noble prelate of ours T It is not for me to decide 
who is right in this matter. 

It would be easy to prove that the Lutheran church 
viewed this Bohemian episcopacy as a mere ecclesiastical 
arrangement, amounting in substance to nothing more than 
the same arrangement among themselves ; sometimes de- 
nominating the individual a superintendent, as in Germany, 
generally ; and sometimes a bishop, or gven archbishop, 
as in Sweden and Denmark. All the Swiss and Geneva 
reformers prove this by expressing their approbation of the 
church discipline of the Bohemians and Waldenses ; for 
every body knows that these reformers determinately main- 
tained the equality hy divine right of all gospel ministers. 

Indeed the story about that Stephen, who, the Moravians 
say, conveyed to them this episcopal succession, is very 
differently related by Perrin, one of the earliest of the 
modern historians of the Waldenses. He had more au- 
thentic documents connected with their ancient history than 
any later historian ever possessed. He says, " About 

9 



194 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

1467, the Hussites, reforming and separating their churches 
from the Church of Rome, understood that there were 
some churches of the ancient Waldenses in Austria, lying 
Upon the frontiers of Bohemia, in which there were great 
and learned men ordained, and appointed to be pastors ; 
and that the doctrine of the gospel flourished in its full 
force and vigour among them : then that they might he 
informed of the truth thereof they sent two of their ministers 
with two elders, giving them in charge to inquire into, and 
know what those flocks or congregations were ; for what 
reason they had separated themselves from the Church of 
Rome ; their principles and progress ; and also to discover 
and make known unto them the beginning of their own 
conduct in Bohemia, and to acquaint them with the cause 
and reason of their separation and dissension from the 
Romish Church. 

" These men being arrived thither, and having found 
out those Waldensian churches, after a diligent and care- 
ful search after them, they told them, that they did nothing 
but what was agreeable to the ordinances of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of his apostles, confining 
themselves wholly to the institution of the Son of God in 
the matter of the sacrament. 

" It was a matter of great joy and satisfaction to the 
Waldenses, to understand, that a great number of people 
in Bohemia had advanced the glory of God, by casting ofl* 
the corruptions and idolatries of the Roman Church, and 
exhorting them in God's name to continue and carry on 
that work which they had so well begun, for the know- 
ledge and maintenance of the truth, and for the establish- 
ment of a good order and discipline among them ; in token 
of their great joy, and that holy society and correspondence 
which they desired to hold with them, they blessed them, 
praying and laying their hands upon themP* And then, 
having mentioned the burning of a great number of the 
Waldenses in a violent persecution, he says, " Among 
others, the history gives us an account of one Stephen, 
AN ELDERLY MAN, who being bumt there," (at Vienna,) 
" confirmed many by his constancy.''^ The translation I 
quote is by " A lover of our Protestant Establishment, 
both in church and state." Perhaps "one Stephen, an 

♦ Perrin's History of the Old Waldenses, part ii, b. ii, chap. 10. 



ON APOSTOLPGAL SUCCESSION. 195 

elderly man," should have been translated, " one Stephen, 
a presbyter or elder. ''^ This is the very Stephen of whom 
the Moravians speak as conveying the episcopal succession 
to them. Hence they sometimes speak about the Church 
of England as " their only episcopal sister.'''' The mission- 
ary labours of the Brethren we would duly estimate ; much 
may be said for their simple manners and piety ; yet all 
such representations as tend to confine a gospel ministry 
and gospel ordinances to any episcopal succession schemes 
are to be suspected. Their tendency is to bind the bless- 
ings of Christianity by ordinances that God never made. 
No order of men ought to be encouraged to assume such 
powers. Simplicity may be frequently beguiled by them, 
and may look upon them as harmless ; but those who study 
the subject in the light of history, and the knowledge of 
human nature, will think very differently. 

As to apostolical succession, Reiner testifies that the 
Waldenses maintained, " that those only are the successors 
of the APOSTLES who imitate their lives. Inferring from 
thence, saith he, that the pope, the bishops, and clergy, 
who enjoy the riches of this world, and seek after them, 
do not follow the lives of the apostles, and therefore are 
not the true guides of the church ; it having never been 
the design of our Lord Jesus Christ to commit his chaste 
and well-beloved spouse to those who would rather prosti- 
tute it by their wicked examples and works, than preserve 
it in the same purity in which they received it at the be- 
ginning, a virgin chaste and without spot.'''' This is the 
true view of the apostolical succession. The reformers 
contended for this. We rejoice to believe that the bishops 
and presbyters in the Moravian church have this succes- 
sion; but most eminently so their missionaries, and all 
other devoted missionaries to the heathen. May every 
church zealously contend for this succession, and may their 
labours be crowned with apostolical success in the con- 
version of thousands and tens of thousands from idols to 
the living God ! 

The matter of the Scotch church, and all the dissenting 
churches, as maintaining the identity by divine right of all 
ministers, is denied by none, and therefore needs no 
proof. 

The reader will have long since perceived that the main 



196 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

end of this argument upon the identity of bishops and pres- 
byters, as one and the same office, is to show that presby- 
ters have EQUALLY as much divine authority to ordain 
others to the Christian ministry as bishops have. Another 
prerogative, however, is generally claimed for bishops, 
viz., that of confirmation. We have taken but little 
notice of this ; yet it would hardly suit the design of this 
Essay wholly to omit it. We account it not of sufficient 
importance for lengthened remark or discussion in a sepa- 
rate section : a brief notice of it here, therefore, by way 
of episode, may suffice. We may comprise all that is 
necessary to be said on the subject in two particulars ; 
first, as to the thing itself; and secondly, as to the minis- 
ter who may perform it. 

First, as to the thing itself. Those illustrious witnesses 
to the truth against Popery, the Waldenses, as we have 
seen, speaking on this subject, say, " This is that which 
they call confirmation, which we find not instituted either 
by Christ or his apostles ; therefore such sacrament is not 
found needful to salvation ; whereby God is blasphemed, 
and which was introduced by the devil's instigation, to 
seduce the people, and to deprive them of the faith of the 
church, and that by such means they might be induced the 
more to believe the ceremonies, and the necessity of 
bishops.^^ Wickliffe also says, " It does not appear that 
this sacrament should be reserved to a Cesarean prelacy ; 
that it would be more devout and more conformable to 
Scripture language, to deny that the bishops give the Holy 
Spirit, or confirm the giving of it ; and that it therefore 
seems to some, that the brief and trivial confirniation of 
the prelates, and the ceremonies added to it for the sake 
of pomp, were introduced at the suggestion of Satan, that 
the people may be deceived as to the faith of the church, 
and that the state and necessity of bishops may be more 
acknowledged."* Melancthon observes, " The rite of 
confirmation, as retained by bishops, is altogether an idle 
ceremony : but an examination of youth, in order to a pro- 
fession of their faith, with public prayer for the pious part 
of them, would be useful, and the prayer would not be in 
vam."t Ravanel, whose work had the approbation of the 

* Vaughan's Life of Wickliffe, vol. ii, p. 308, sec. ed., 1831. 
t Loci Communes, de Confirmatione. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 197 

French reformed church, says, " The wrangling Popish 
divines maintain the dignity and efficacy of confirmation 
ABOVE the sacrament of baptism itself; for they assert that 
it is not lawful for any one but a bishop to confer it, while 
they concede that presbyters can administer baptism : and 
they impiously teach that confirmation is a certain perfecting 
and consummating of baptism, as if those were to be counted 
only half Christians who are baptized only, and not con- 
firmed ; whereas the apostle testifies that we put on Christ 
in baptism."* Bishop Taylor boldly declares, that, until 
we are confirmed, we are imperfect Christians ; such, 
" without a miracle, are not perfect Christians :" that is, 
not really Christians at all. Calvin has some admirable 
remarks upon the subject, Inst., lib. iv, c. 19. He ap- 
proves of a similar procedure to that mentioned above by 
Melancthon. He exposes the absurdity and impiety of 
taking the act of the apostles in conferring the visible and 
MIRACULOUS GIFTS of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of 
their hands upon the baptized, as a ground for the pretence 
of bishops to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of 
THEIR hands in confirmation. He calls them " apes of the 
apostles." He shows that by this kind of pretence they 
invalidate baptism itself thus making void the command- 
ments of God by the traditions of men, and exclaims, " O 
the iniquity of this proceeding !" H^ then offers ironically 
an improved definition of confirmation, viz., that it is "a 
marked disgrace to baptism, which obscures the use of 
baptism, yea, abolishes it : the devil's false promise, to 
draw us away from the true promises of God." The rite 
of confirmation in the English Church differs from the 
Popish one in that it is not called a sacrament ; and some 
ceremonies are laid aside : in all other respects it is equally 
unscriptural in its pretences, and dangerous in its conse- 
quences. To establish a claim to it as a prerogative of 
bishops, in imitation of the apostles, they, the bishops, 
must confer the gift of miracles. The latter they cannot 
do: the claim, therefore, exposes Christianity itself to con^ 
tempt. This claim ought to be given up. Bishop Taylor, 
speaking of the Popish doctrine of extreme unction, says, 
** When the miracxdous healing ceased, then they were not 
Catholics^ but heretics, that did transfer it to the use of 

* Bibliotheca Sacra, sub voce. 



198 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

dying persons." By this rule he would convict the Church 
of England of heresy in the use of confirmation. It doubt- 
less imbodies serious errors ; though we do not say it 
constitutes heresy. Every Christian has a right to repro- 
bate it as a public injury to religion. It is degrading also 
to all other ministers, as implying that the sacrament of 
baptism, as administered by them, is imperfect. It dero- 
gates from the sacrament of baptism itself.* Besides, 
there is the solemn declaration made by the bishop, in 
administering the rite of confirmation, that the " Almighty 
and everlasting God has given forgiveness of all 
THEIR sins" — all their actual personal sins — to the multi- 
tudes of young persons brought to be confirmed, many of 
whom are plainly ungodly persons, and who had never 
been seen by the bishop before. This is enough to make 
any pious person tremble. It is a daring presumption, 
only equalled by the height of Popery itself. The great 
danger to souls is, that multitudes believe it. I pity many 
good men who are entangled with these things. The re- 
formers of the English Church might find some excuse for 
retaining them, because it was difficult in the darkness of 
those times to see the truth in all things ; but there can 
be no excuse at this day for retaining them. Every Pro- 
testant ought to protest against these corruptions of Chris- 
tianity. Melancthon's view contains all that the Scrip- 
tures warrant. 

Secondly, let us consider who is the minister to whom 
the administering of this rite belongs. Indeed, as there 
is no divine authority for the thing itself, of course there is 
no divine regulation about the minister. Bishop Burnet 
grants, that there is " no express institution of it, neither 
by Christ nor his apostles ; no rule given to practise it."t 

* Bishop Heber, in his Life of Bishop Taylor, speaking of his work 
on Confirmation, says, " There is, indeed, a dangerous consequence 
attendant on both Taylor's arguments, that, by limiting the gift of the 
Holy Ghost to confirmationy he makes baptism, taken by itself, of 
NONE EFFECT, or, at most, of no further effect than as a decent and 
necessary introduction to that which would be, on this hypothesis, the 
main and distinctive consignation of a Christian." King James I., at 
the Hampton Court conference, declared his opinion, '' that arguing a 
confirmation of baptism, as if this sacrament without it were of no 
validity, is plainly blasphemous." 

t Burnet on the Articles, art. 25. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 199 

The whole is merely a matter of human arrangement. How- 
ever, Bishop Taylor dashes off the affirmation, that " bishops 
were always, and the only ministers of confirmation ^ It 
is humiliating to find this splendid writer frequently so 
reckless in assertion, and so careless of proof. Bishop 
Heber candidly acknowledges, in his admirable Life of 
Taylor, that " he was any thing rather than a critical in- 
quirer into facts (however strange) of history or of philo- 
sophy. If such alleged facts suited his purpose, he re- 
ceived them without examination, and retailed them without 
scruple.''^ Vol. ii, p. 179, 12mo. Now, to overturn for ever, 
and from the foundation, his rash affirmation, and all similar 
affirmations, we have only to bring before the reader the 
indisputable fact, that in the Greek church it never was 
confined to the bishops, but always was, and is to the pre- 
sent day, administered by presbyters and bishops promis- 
cuously. There is no satisfactory proof, indeed, that it 
existed at all in the early ages of the church, after the 
apostles' time, in the sense and manner in which it is now 
used in the Church of England. As the concluding part 
of baptism ; and as a way of confirming the baptism of 
heretics, it somewhat early came into the church, as may 
be seen in Cyprian, epist. 72 and 76, ed. Pamel. ; in Siri- 
cer's Thesaurus, vol. ii, col. 1534, &c., ed. 1682; and 
Calder wood's Altare Damascenum, p. 257, &c., ed. 1708. 
" The invention^'' says Bishop Burnet, art. 25, " that was 
afterward found out, by which the bishop was held to be 
the only minister of confirmation, even though presbyters 
were suffered to confirm, was a piece of superstition without 
any colour from Scripture. — In the Latin church, Jerome 
tells us, that in his time bishops only confirmed ; though 
he makes the reason of this to be rather for doing to them 
honour, than from any necessity of law. — It is said by 
Hilary, that in Egypt the presbyters did confirm in the 
bishop's absence : so that custom grew to be the universal 
practice of the Greek church^ The learned Mr. Smith, in 
his work on the " Present State of the Greek Church," 
tells us, that " the administration of confirmation is conceded 
to bishops and presbyters promiscuously^^ in the present 
Greek church: p. 112, ed. sec, 1678. The Church of 
Rome, as an ordinary rule, confines it to bishops, but has 
always granted that presbyters, by the permission of the 



200 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

church, were capable of administering confirmation ; and 
presbyters have actually and frequently administered it in 
that church.* So much for the truth of Bishop Taylor's 
rash and reckless affirmation, that " bishops were always, 
and the onli/ ministers of confirmation." 

There is no divine authority for the thing : the present 
mode of administering it is full of presumption and danger. 
In a reformed state of the matter, presbyters might, by the 
will of the church, be equally as efficient administrators 
of it as bishops. To claim it as a divine prerogative of 
bishops, is like all the other assumptions of this scheme — 
an utterly baseless assumption. 

Here, then, is abundant proof of the shallowness of the 
pretence of some who seem to boast as though almost all 
the authority of the Christian church was on the side of 
their high Church claims for episcopal succession. The 
truth is, we see, that no Christian church ever main- 
tained IT ; MANY have expressly negatived these claims ; 
none ever affirmed them. 

The maintaining of the true Scriptural liberty of every 
section of the Christian church is a matter of great import- 
ance to Christianity itself, and to the peace of the Chris- 
tian world at large. While no Scriptural principles are 
violated, and while the morals of the church are not cor- 
rupted, each church has the sacred right of adopting what 
form of government it deems the best. No section of the 
Christian church has any authority, beyond these princi- 
ples, to bind the practices of another church. Every at- 
tempt to do this is essentially Popery ; it is antichrist, 
setting up his throne in the church above the throne of 
God himself. Episcopacy, if administered with humility, 
and in a pacific spirit, may, on these principles of Chris- 
tian truth, be adopted and justified ; but, if its advocates 
become proud and insolent to those churches who adopt it 
not ; if they insult the ministers, and endeavour to disturb 
the minds of the private members of those churches by 
unscriptural declamation and denunciation against the va- 
lidity of their ordinances ; if they proudly arrogate to them- 
selves the sole rio^ht to administer the ordinances of the 
gospel : in such a case, they commence a spiritual usurpa- 

* See the Canon Law, distinction 95, and Lancelot's Notes on the 
same. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 201 

tion and tyranny in the church of God. To overturn such 
a system is to defend the gospel ; and its overthrow w^ill 
promote the peace of the v^^hole Christian world. 



SECTION IX. 

THE GREATEST DIVINES OF ALL AGES SHOWN TO BE 
AGAINST THESE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS FOR THE DIVINE 
RIGHT OF BISHOPS. 

Of course this point has been anticipated in the pre- 
ceding sections ; for while it has been shown that no 
church ever affirmed this order of bishops by divine right, 
but that all churches have substantially negatived it, the 
doctrine of these churches proves the opinion of the 
greatest divines of all ages to have been against the tenet 
of bishops being by divine right an order distinct from, 
and superior to, presbyters ; having government over mi- 
nisters as well as over people ; and the sole power and 
authority of ordaining other ministers in the church of God. 
But besides their testimony in the voice of their different 
churches, many of them have spoken so expressly upon 
the subject, that it may be worth while to hear them deliver 
their own decisions. 

First, The Christian Fathers. — We have treated 
this subject in a former section. We shall give the learned 
Stillingfleet's opinion in connection with this point. " I 
believe,'' says he, " upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's 
judgment will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, 
Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theo- 
phylact, were all of Aerius's judgment, as to the identity 
of both name and order of bishops and presbyters, in the 
primitive church ; but here lay the difference, Aerius from 
thence proceeded to separation from the bishops and their 
churches, because they were bishops."* 

WicKLiFFE : — " I boldly assert one thing, viz., that in 
the primitive church, or in the time of Paul, two orders 
of the clergy were sufficient, that is, a priest and a deacon. 

* Irenicum, p. 276, sec. ed., 1662. 
9* 



202 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

In like manner I affirm, that in the time of Paul, the pres* 
hyter and bishop were names of the same office. This 
appears from the third chapter of the First Epistle to Ti- 
mothy, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus. 
And the same is testified by that profound theologian, 
Jerome."* 

Erasmus : — " Anciently none were called priests but 
bishops and presbyters, who were the same, but afterward 
presbyters were distinguished from the priest ;"t that is, 
from the bishop. 

Cranmer : — " The bishops and priests [presbyters] 
were at one time, and were no two things, but both one 
in the beginning of Christ's religion."^ 

Dr. Whitaker, one of the greatest Protestant champi- 
ons in the days of Queen Elizabeth and James I. : — " For- 
merly there was no difference between a presbyter and a 
bishop. — For the placing of bishops over presbyters was a 
HUMAN arrangement — ordo humanusfuit — devised to take 
away schisms, as history testifies."^ 

Calvin : — " The reason why I have used the terms 
bishops and presbyters, and pastors and ministers, promis- 
cuously, is, because the Scriptures do the same ; for they 
give the title of bishops to all persons whatsoever who 
were ministers of the gospel. ''^\ 

Beza : — " The authority of all pastors is equal among 
themselves ; also their office is one and the same."T[ As 
mighty effi^rts are often made to bring in the authority of 
Beza for these claims, we will add another passage or two 
from this great reformer. In his work on the Church, De 
Ecclesia, above quoted, he begins the thirty-second sec- 
tion thus : — " At length we come to the third species of 
ecclesiastical offices, viz., that which pertains to spiritual 
jurisdiction. Now this jurisdiction was committed to 
presbyters properly so called ; whose name implies as 
much as though you should call them senators or elders. 
The apostle, in 1 Cor. xii, 28, calls them governors or 
rulers. And Christ designates the college of presbyters, 

* Vaughan's Life of WicklifFe, vol. ii, p. 275, sec. ed. Lond., 1831. 

\ Scholia in Epist. Hieron. ad Nepot., folio 6, vol. i, ed. 1516. 

t Burnet's History of the Reformation. 

^ Whitakeri 0pp., pp. 509, 510, fol. Genev., 1610. 

11 lustit., lib. 4, c. 8, sec. 8. IT De Eccles., sec. 29. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 203 

the church, because in them resided the supreme power 
in the government of the church." Here " presbyters, 
properly so called, have committed to them the spiritual 
jurisdiction of the church, and supreme power P How- 
strange ! to pretend that such a writer is an advocate for 
the supreme power of bishops by divine right. Beza, 
speaking of the angel of the church, mentioned Rev. ii, 1, 
calls him the president, " who," he says, " ought in the 
first place to be admonished about these matters, and then 
by him his other colleagues, and so the whole church. 
But from this to try to prove the establishment of that 
order of episcopacy which was afterward introduced into 
the church of God by human arrangements, is what neither 
can nor ought to be done : it will not even follow from this 
place that the office of president should necessarily be per- 
petual ; even as it is now at length clear by that tyrannical 
oligarchy^^ (that is, the bishops) " whose head or apex is 
antichrist, and loho arose from this scheme with the most 
pernicious effect upon the lohole church, and upon the 
worlds 

Melancthon : — " They who taught in the church, and 
baptized, and administered the Lord's supper, were called 
bishops or presbyters ; and those were called deacons who 
distributed alms in the church. But these offices vvere not 
so separated as to make it sinful for a deacon to teach, or 
to baptize, or to administer the eucharist. Indeed all these 
things are lawful to all Christians ; for the keys are given 
to all. Matt, xviii."* 

M. Flacius Illyricus. — Treating of the time of the 
apostles, he says, " A presbyter was then the same as a 
bishop J^ Speaking of the primitive church, he says, " The 
bishop was the first presbyter among the presbyters of 
each church, and this was done for the sake of order." 
And, after quoting Jerome's statement, that, in the apostles* 
time, bishops and presbyters were 7iot distinguished one 
from the other, but that this distinction, of one to preside 
over the rest, was made afterward, as a remedy against 
schism, Flacius himself remarks, " Hence it is evident 
that, about this time, in the end of the first or the begin- 
ning of the second century, this alteration took place, so 

* Loc. Com., 12mo. Basil, 1521. 



204 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 



that episcopacy is not so much by divine appointment as 
by human authority."* 

Blondell and Dalleus : — " Episcopacy as now distin- 
guished from presbyters, according to the custom of the 
church from the third century, is not of apostolical appoint- 
ment^ but merely of human institution."! 

Claude : — " As to those who were ordained by mere 
priests, [presbyters,] can the author of the Prejudices be 
ignorant that the distinction of a bishop and a priest, or 
minister, as if they had two different offices, is not only 
a thing that they cannot prove out of the Scriptures, but 
that even contradicts the express words of the Scripture, 
were bishops and priests are the names of one and the same 
office, from whence it follows that the priests have, by their 
first institution, a right to confer ordination, that cannot be 
taken from them by mere human rules. "| 

BocHART : — " If the question be as to the antiquity, I 
am plainly of opinion, with Jerome, that in the apostles' 
age, there was no difference between bishops and presby- 
ters, and that the churches were governed by the common 
council of the presbyters. Therefore presbyters are more 
ancient than bishops. In the mean time I grant that epis- 
copal government is very ancient, and that, a little after 
the apostles' times, it became universal and greatly useful." 
See his letter to Morley, chaplain to King Charles I., and 
afterward bishop of Worcester. Upon this letter the Rev. 
James Owen remarks, " Of late years some arts have been 
used to procure letters from some eminent foreign divines, 
to condemn the nonconformists here, without hearing both 
sides. This is evident by Dr. Morley's letter to the famous 
Bochart."^|| 

* Catalog. Test. Veritat., vol. i, p. 84. 

t Vid. Beverigii Codex Can. Eccles. Prim. Vind. Proem. 

t Defence of the Reformation, part iv, p. 95. 

§ Abridgment of Mr. James Owen's Plea, p. 39. 

II *' When the French churches were earnestly solicited (particularly 
by Bishop Moreton) to receive a clergy ordained by English bishops, 
they absolutely refused that motion : Peter Moulin, a famous French 
Protestant minister, in his letter to the bishop of Winchester, excusing 
himself for not making the difference between bishops and presbyters to 
be of divine appointment , he pleads, — that if he had laid the difference 
on that foundation, the French churches loould have silenced him.'*'' — 
Ibid., pp. 37, 38. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 205 

Grotius : — " BTTCdKOTTT}, or the office of a bishop, sig- 
nifies inspection or oversight of any kind. The inspectors^ 
or those who preside over the church, are presbyters. 
The chief of these presbyters, afterward, by way of excel- 
lence, BEGAN to be called bishop, as is evident from those 
canons which are termed apostolical canons, in the Epis- 
tles of Ignatius, in Tertullian, and others."* When this 
illustrious scholar had received a copy of the celebrated 
Epistle of Clemens Romanus, he tells us he " read and re- 
read it." He then gives his judgment in the following 
manner : — " Clemens never mentions that extraordinary 
authority of bishops, which, after the death of St. Mark, 
began by the custom of the church to be introduced at Alex- 
andria, and, by this example, elsewhere : but he plainly 
shows, as St. Paul does, that the churches were then 
governed by the common council of the presbyters ; which 
presbyters both Clemens and St. Paul say loere the same 
AS BISHOPS."! And, in his posthumous work, quoted by 
many Episcopalian writers with the greatest confidence, 
and even with something like triumph, he plainly declares^ 
that " episcopal pre-eminence, or the superiority of one 
minister over others, is not of divine rightP " This," 
says he, "is sufficiently proved, hecs.i\se the contrary z> not 
proved.^^X Logic this, which these writers are well pleased 
to forget, but which their readers should always have in 
mind. 

Here, perhaps, is a proper place to point out a mistake 
into which many Church-of-England divines have fallen. 
They have found that Calvin, Beza, and other illustrious 
foreigners, praised the ecclesiastical order in the Church 
of England, and have immediately jumped to the conclu- 
sion, that those divines and great scholars were in favour 
of episcopacy by divine right. Now the whole conduct 
of Calvin and Beza, for instance, in the government of 
their churches, as well as their declaration in the above 
quotations, distinctly shows the contrary. The case of 
Zanchius will illustrate the matter still further. 

Zanchius, says the Rev. J. Sinclair, " was by some 

* Annot. in 1 Tim. iii. 

t Grotii Epist., No. 347, ed. Amstel, fol., 1687. 
t De Imperio Sum. Potest, circa Sacra, cap. xi, p. 327, ed. 
Paris, 1647. 



206 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

reputed among the most learned of Calvin's contempora- 
ries." Mr. Sinclair, and some others, catch at an admis- 
sion of this eminent reformer, that episcopacy may be 
properly established, as one form of church government, 
as though by this admission he meant to support episco- 
pacy by divine right. This is a fallacy which such writers 
ahoays employ : without it they cannot stir a single step in 
this controversy. Zanchius spent nearly the whole of his 
life in the services of a church that was loholly preshyterian. 
This practice^ therefore, utterly destroys all the claims of 
exclusive Episcopalians to the benefit of his testimony. In 
his Confession of his Faith, he solemnly delivers his 
judgment on the subject of ministerial equality : chapter 
twenty-fifth contains thirty-nine aphorisms on the govern- 
ment of the church, and on the ministry of the gospel. 
In aphorism ninth, he says that the Lord Jesus Christ con- 
stituted^fe orders of ministers, — "apostles, prophets, evan- 
gelists, pastors, and doctors, Ephes. iv, 11." The first 
three he says were extraordinary and temporary ; the two 
last " ordinary and perpetual." " For," says he, " the 
frequent mention, by the apostles, of bishops, presbyters, 
and teachers, does not constitute new orders; for those 
who are called pastors are the same as are always signi- 
fied by bishops ; and often by the name of presbyters." 
Zanchius maintained the notion that presbyters sometimes 
meant lay elders as church rulers ; and, therefore, he says, 
that presbyters often signified pastors, though, in his view, 
not always. Then, aphorism tenth, the title is, " The 
fathers not condemned by us because they added more 
orders of ministers." In aphorism eleventh, he explains 
himself about these new orders, added by the fathers, to 
what Christ and his apostles instituted. " Therefore," 
says he, " seeing that all the former ministers of the gospel 
were equally called pastors, bishops, and presbyters ; and 
seeing they were all of equal authority ; one began 
afterward to be placed over all his colleagues ; although 
not as a master or lord, but as a head in a college to the 
rest of the fellows of the college : to him principally was 
committed the care of the whole church, and therefore it 
became the custom to give him alone, by way of excellence, 
the name of bishop or pastor ; the rest of his colleagues 
being content with the name of presbyter ; so that there 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 207 

began to be only one bishop and many presbyters in each 
city : this arrangement we judge is not at all to be con- 
demned. As to which matter the account of Jerome, and 
the judgment he delivers in his Epistle to Evagrius, in his 
comment on Titus, is embraced by us, where he declares 
that this whole arrangement was rather from custom than 
di^dne appointment, to take away dissensions and schisms. 
On the same ground we think the appointment of archbish- 
ops, and even of the four patriarchs, which took place 
indeed before the council of Nice, may be excused and 
defended : although all these in course of time were car- 
ried to the highest ambition and tyranny. This is the 
reason why the nearer an approach is made in the orders 
of ministers to apostolical simplicity, the more we approve 
it ; and we judge that due care should everywhere be 
used to attain to this simplicity." Then, at the close of 
the chapter, is an enumeration of errors to be rejected ; 
the eleventh is, that of " extending the authority of a 
bishop beyond that given by Christ who called him." 
Here we see Zanchius solemnly declare his faith to be, 
that " all the ministers of the gospel, instituted by Christ 
and his apostles, were equally called pastors, bishops, and 
presbyters, seeing they were all of equal authority ;" 
that bishops, as superintendents over other ministers, were 
" added by the fathers ;" and that the ground of their exist- 
ence, as such, is the same as that of archbishops and patri- 
archs, which all grant to be merely a human arrangement. 
Zanchius, then, maintained that episcopacy was merely a 
human arrangement ; yet these men quote him to prove its 
divine right: Zanchius maintained that it might be approved 
and justified when modestly used ; yet these men quote 
him to maintain its necessity and its exclusiveness against 
the validity of all other forms ! 

But Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, &c., had no objection to 
episcopacy as an ecclesiastical arrangement of a superin- 
tendency of one minister over other ministers, for the sake 
of order and good government in the church ; provided it 
could be guarded against a tendency to ecclesiastical 
tyranny. Very right. The Wesley an Methodists adopt 
the same opinion, and practise it under a very extended 
superintendency. It is so guarded among them as to pre- 
vent the possibility of supposing one minister superior by 



208 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

divine right to another. The truth of the case is, then, 
that these great continental divines and scholars, in their 
approbation of the ecclesiastical arrangements in the 
Church of England, show that they really believed the 
episcopacy of that Church not to be of divine right, but of 
human authority: this is the only legitimate conclusion 
that can be drawn from their statements and conduct ; a 
conclusion directly opposed to the end for which many of 
the Episcopalians now quote them. Indeed, these men 
pervert and abuse the authority of the great reformers, and 
continental divines. 

ViTRiNGA : — " All the rulers or governors of the church 
of Ephesus were equally, and without the least difference, 
called bishops, presbyters, and pastors. Acts xx, 17, &c. 
Yea, indeed, were we to collect all those places in the his- 
torical books, and epistles of the New Testament, in which 
the persons presiding over the church are mentioned, 
under different circumstances, we should meet with them 
everywhere equal both in name and in office, no difference 
at all ever being made between them. Bishops, presby- 
ters, and pastors, according to the style of the sacred Scrip- 
tures, are names designating one and the same order of men ; 
they are neither distinguished in the kind of their ordet, 
nor their office. This position will stand, I am persuaded, 
as long as the Acts of the Apostles and their epistles shall 
be read without prejudice."* 

MosHEiM : — " The rulers of the church were called 
either presbyters or bishops, which two titles are, in the 
New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of 
men."t 

SuicER : — " At the first, therefore, all presbyters were 
equally over the flock, and had none over themselves ; for 
they were called bishops, and had episcopal power, and ac- 
knowledged none above themselves, seeing they all came by 
order to the primacy, which primacy was only a matter 
of order by sitting in the first chair, and conferred no 
superior poioer. And this was the constitution of the 
church under the government of the apostles. Afterward, 
when bishops were made above presbyters, both being the 
SAME in name and reality, then the bishops presided over 

* De Synagog. Vet., lib. 2, cap. 3, pp. 447 and 485. 
t Eccles. Hist., vol. i, p. 101. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 209 

the presbyters of each city, all bishops being accounted 
equal. This state of things continued till the council of 
Nice, A. D. 325, or a little after. From that time metro- 
politans were placed over the bishops of a province, and 
had the right of ordaining the bishops of that province."* 

ScHLEusNER : — " For at length, after the apostles' age, 
that difference was introduced between the bishops and 
presbyters, that the bishops should have the greater digni- 
ty, as Suicerus rightly states in his Thesaurus Ecclesias- 

ticus."t 

Archbishop Usher : — " I asked him [Abp. Usher] 
also his judgment about the YdXi^ity oipreshyter'^s ordination; 
which he asserted^ and told me that the king [Charles I.] 
asked him, at the Isle of Wight, wherever he found in 
antiquity, that presbyters alone ordained any 1 and that he 
answered, I can show your majesty more, even where 

PRESBYTERS ALONE SUCCESSIVELY ORDAINED BISHOPS ; 

and instanced in Hierome's words, Epist. ad Evagriu7n, 
of the presbyters of Alexandria chusing and making their 
own bishops from the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dio- 
nysius."J And his express words, quoted by Dr. Parr, in 
his Appendix to the Archbishop's Life, are these — " A 
presbyter hath the same order in specie with a bishop : 
ergo, a presbyter hath equally an intrinsic power to give 
orders, and is equal to him in the power of order. ^^^ 

Now here is a host of men, whose qualifications for 
giving their judgment in this matter were never surpassed, 
all determining, with one voice, that by divine right 

ALL MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL ARE EQUAL ; and that the 

order of bishops, as now existing, is only a human ar- 
rangement. 

Here, then, this all-deciding point is placed on the basis 
of a CATHOLIC or universal doctrine of the Christian 
cTturch. The celebrated rule of Vincentius Lirinensis is, that 
a doctrine truly catholic, is one " believed in all places, at 
all times, and by all the faithful. And we are thus catho- 
lic, when we follow universality, antiquity, and consent : 
but we follow universality, when we profess that only to be 

* Thesaur. Eccles., torn, i, col. 1180. 

t Lex. Gr. in Nov. Test., sub voce ETaaKonog. 

X Life of Baxter, by Sylvester, fol., lib. i, part ii, sec. 63, p. 206. 

^ See Dr. John Edwards's Discourse on Episcopacy, chap. xiv. 



210 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the true faith which is professed by the church all the 
world over. In like manner, we are followers of antiquity^ 
when we religiously adhere to that sense of Scripture 
which manifestly obtained among the holy fathers, our 
predecessors. And lastly, we follow consent, when we 
embrace the definitions and opinions of almost all, if not 
all, the bishops and teachers of the ancient church."* 
Vincentius himself shows no case in which this rule more 
fully applied than it applies to the position, that all gospel 
ministers are, by divine right, equal in power and authority 
in the Christian church. 

The MAIN PILLAR of this semi-popish succession scheme 
was the assumption of the divine right of episcopacy. 
But we have now shown that presbyters and bishops are 
one and the same, by the supreme authority of the sacred 
Scriptures most expressly; by the consent of the 
FATHERS ; and by the consent of all the Christian 
CHURCHES in the world. The following conclusions, then, 
are fully established : — 

1. All the acts of presbyters are, by divine right, of 
EQUAL AUTHORITY with the acts of any bishops or arch- 
bishops whatever. 

2. Ordination by presbyters has equal divine authority 
with ordination by bishops ; and is more conformable to the 
Holy Scriptures. 

3. Presbyters are equally as much successors of the 
apostles, in all the rights and authority remaining to the 
ministers of Christ, as the bishops are. 

4. Whatever evidence, moreover, there is in any epis- 
copal church for an uninterrupted line of bishops from 
Peter, or any other apostle, there is the same evidence for 
an UNINTERRUPTED LINE of prcsbytcrs from that very 
apostle to the present day in every other Protestant church 
in the world. No man can properly or Scripturally be a 
bishop, except he be first a presbyter. Every bishop, 
then, necessarily presupposes a presbyter: where there is 
no presbyter, there can be no bishop, even on the princi- 
ples of our opponents. Therefore, wherever there is an 
uninterrupted series of true bishops, there is an uninterrupt- 
ed series of presbyters also. The Lutheran church, the 
Reformed or Calvinistic churches of Germany, the re- 

* Reeves's Translation, chap, iii. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 211 

formed French church, the church of Scotland, the Dis- 
senters in general of Great Britain and Ireland, and the 
Wesleyan and Calvinistic Methodists, are all governed hy 
presbyters. These had an uninterrupted succession from 
other presbyters. Those in the Scotch church, in the 
Lutheran church, &c., had an uninterrupted succession 
from the presbyters (bishops) of the Romish Church: 
those of the different Protestant churches in England, 
from the presbyters (bishops) of the Church of England. 
What these bishops were, by ecclesiastical or human ar- 
rangement, as distinct from presbyters, or real Scriptural 
*)ishops, adds no validity to their acts above presbyters. 
This we have already clearly proved. All they had of 
real Scriptural authority arose from any claim they might 
have to be considered as real Scriptural presbyters. All 
this authority passed to the presbyters of the above-men- 
tioned churches by uninterrupted succession in their ordi- 
nation. The human authority of a bishop does not effect 
the question at all. If an uninterrupted succession is worth 
any thing, it is, therefore, worth as much for presbyters as 
for bishops. The ministry, the ordinations, the adminis- 
tration of the sacraments, in all the above-mentioned 
churches, therefore, are, even on this ground, equally as 
Scriptural, valid, and apostolical, as the ministry, &c., of 
any episcopal church. But, if they have equal validity 
and apostolicity from the argument of a succession of 
persons, many of them have reason to thank God, on 
their own behalf, that they have much more evidence of 
the same thing from the personal piety of their ministers, 
the doctrines they teach, the discipline exercised over their 
members, the unsecularized state of their churches, the 
Scriptural character of their various ordinances, and, above 
all, in the conversion of sinners unto God. 

This exclusive, intolerant scheme, then, of apostolical 
succession in bishops alone, as taught by these high 
Church divines, falls to the ground. It is a monstrous 
FABRICATION, designed to support a system of usurpation 
over ministers and people ; and to maintain a method of 
excluding from the pale of Christianity all who do not sub- 
mit to it. It is Anglican Popery with many heads, set up 
in the place, and to accomplish the purposes, of the Popery 
of Rome. Let all true Protestants protest against it. Let 



212 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 

US contend for the succession oi faith and holiness as the 
only infallible tests of a Christian church. For this let all 
ihe true members of the Church of England contend, both 
ministers and people. The writer, for one, will then fer- 
vently pray that God may make them a thousand times as 
many more as they are at this day. The world is before 
us : the faith of the gospel must save it. It is adapted and 
designed for this purpose. May the preaching of this 
faith, by whomsoever and wheresoever, have free course 
and be glorified ! 



SECTION X. 

NO SUFFICIENT HISTORIC EVIDENCE OF A PERSONAL SUC- 
CESSION OF VALID EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS. 

In the close of the last section, we have shown that the 
proof of the equality, by divine right, of bishops and 
presbyters, is fatal to the whole scheme of high Church suc- 
cessionists ; utterly destroying its exclusive character. 
Here we might safely rest the cause. But as pretensions 
are boldly avowed, by high Churchmen, of their ability to 
trace the pedigree of their ordinations through an unbroken 
series of apostolical bishops ; and as they employ this topic 
for the purpose of intolerance, it may not be without inte- 
rest, or utility either, if we examine this point also. Dr. 
Hook shall state their case : " The prelates who at the 
present time rule the churches of these realms, were 
validly ordained by others, who by means of an unbroken 
spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from 
the apostles and from our Lord. This continued descent is 
evident to every one who chooses to investigate it. 
Let him read the Catalogues of Bishops, ascending up to the 
most remote period. Our ordinations descend in a direct 
UNBROKEN line from Peter and Paul, th^ apostles of the 
circumcision and the Gentiles. These great apostles suc- 
cessively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement, bishops of 
Rome ; and the apostolic succession was regularly con- 
tinued from them to Celestine, Gregory, and Vitalianus, 
who ordained Patrick, bishop for the Irish, and Augustine 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 213 

and Theodore, for the English. And from those times an 
uninterrupted series of valid ordinations has carried down 
the APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION in our churches to the 
present day. There is not a bishop, priest, or deacon 
among us, who cannot, if he please, trace his own spiritual 
descent from St. Peter or St. Paul."* 

I am perplexed to account for such statements as the 
above. I have investigated this subject, and I solemnly 
declare my belief that they are utterly false. My per- 
plexity is, I say, how to account for them. I cannot, I do 
not think, that the authors of them mean to say what they 
know to be false. I suppose they ivished them to be true ; 
and, not having time to examine for themselves, take them 
upon trust, and give them at second hand. But then if we 
can find excuse for Dr. Hook's want of knowledge of his 
subject, his arrogance can have none. Let the reader care- 
fully mark the tone of the doctor's Two Sermons on the 
Church and the Establishment. They are full of arrogance 
and insolence to all other churches — " The words of his 
mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in his heart : 
his words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords." 
" You will observe," says he, " how important all this is 
which I have now laid before you. Unless Christ be 
spiritually present with the ministers of religion in their 
services, those services will be vain. But the only min- 
istrations to which he has promised his presence, is, to 
those of the bishops who are successors of the first com- 
missioned apostles, and the other clergy acting under 
their sanction and by their authority. 

" I know the outcry which is raised against this — ^the 
doctrine of the Christian church for eighteen hundred 
years — I know the outcry that is raised against it by 
those sects which can trace their origin no higher than 
to some celebrated preacher at the Reformation, — ^but I 
disregard it, because I shall, by God's help, continue to 
do, what I have done ever since I came among you, 
namely, declare the whole counsel of God, without re- 
gard to consequences or respect of persons, and, at the 
same time, as far as in me lies, live peaceably with all 
men." After perusing the preceding part of this Essay, 
the reader will clearly see how much confidence is to be 

*■ Two Sermons, 3d edition, Leeds, 1837, pp. 7, 8. 



214 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

placed in the doctor's assertion, that his doctrine of apos- 
tolical succession has been " the doctrine of the Christian 
church for eighteen hundred years." His excommunica- 
tion of ALL the Protestant churches in the world from the 
pale of Christianity, except the Church of England, (for it 
is at these he points the finger of scorn — " those sects 
which can trace their origin no higher than to some cele- 
brated preacher at the Reformation,") is exactly in the 
spirit of the declaration of Froude, a leader of the Oxford 
Tract-men, quoted at page 144 :— " Really," says he, " I 
HATE the Reformation and the reformers more and 
more." Yet all this baseless assertion, and this denuncia- 
tion against all these Protestant churches, the doctor be- 
lieves he makes " ly the help of God /"- — and, at the same 
time, he persuades himself that he endeavours " to live 
peaceably with all men ! /" 

Let it be understood that the writer of this Essay does 
not wish to undervalue the succession of pious pastors in 
any church ; no, it ought to be a cause of gratitude to God, 
when he raises up and gives such men to his church. 
But God's gifts never bind his own hands from giving 
equally excellent men, in any age, to any church. How- 
ever, the case is altogether different when those who 
arrogate the title of his ministers, corrupt the gospel, and 
absolutely forbid any one, without their sanction and sinful 
impositions, to preach it in a purer form. And, since the 
time of the apostles, this has been done repeatedly by 
pretenders to apostolical succession. Indeed, could this 
personal descent be made out with the completeness pre- 
tended, it would prove no divine right to any exclusive 
claims to God's ordinances and blessings. God never 
made it a requisite in true ministers ; and the man that 
attempts it, in order to exclude other churches from the 
pale of Christianity, is an enemy to the rights, and to the 
peace of God's church. He may have deceived himself, 
and think otherwise ; but such he is, and such he must be, 
till he abandon his scheme. No such descent, however, 
can be proved. 

We will now proceed to show that there is no suffi- 
cient HISTORIC evidence of this " direct unbroken line 
from Peter," &c. Every link of this evidence ought to be 
clear and strong. Dr. Hook says they ar^ " evident to any 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 215 

one who wishes to investigate the subject." But the very 
first links are all broken in pieces. 

Eusebius is often appealed to with confidence by suc- 
cession divines* He had the fairest opportunity for giving 
certainty to this subject up to his day, could certainty have 
been had. He wrote about A. D. 320. He had read 
every thing which remained by any or all of the fathers 
before him. The emperor Constantino the Great was his 
friend ; so that he could not want facilities and means of 
information. One great end at which Eusebius aimed, 
was " to preserve from oblivion the successions, although 
not of all, yet of the most famous apostles of our Saviour 
in those churches which then were eminent and still 
renowned."* 

Now let us hear his own account of the certainty he 
possessed on such subjects. He tells us, in this very 
chapter, that he had ''to tread a solitary and untrodden 
way — and could nowhere find so much as the hare steps of 
any men who had passed the same path before ; excepting 
only some shows and tokens divers here and there had left, 
particularly declaring of the times they lived in, holding 
forth torches as it were afar off, and lifting up their voices 
from on high, and calling as out of a watch-tower what way 
we ought to go, and how without error or danger to order 
our discourse." This is not a very luminous, certain 
path ! — Then speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches 
founded by them, he says, "Now how many and what 
sincere followers of them have been approved as sufficient 
to take the charge of those churches by them founded, it 
is not easy to say, except such and so many as may be 
collected from the words of St. Paul." This is honest; 
but it shows the folly of building our Christianity upon 
such an uncertain foundation ; for St. Paul gives no suc- 
cession lists ; and even Eusebius hath nothing certain 
besides the words of St. Paul. He then proceeds to say, 
" Timothy is reported to have been the first that was 
chosen to the bishopric of the Ephesian church ; as also 
Titus, of the churches in Crete." This is evidently guess- 
work in its origin, upon the foundation of St. Paul's having 
mentioned their names in connection with these two 
places; for Whitby acknowledges he " can find nothing 

* Eccles. Hist., b. i, chap, i, English translation^ Cambridge, 1683. 



216 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

of this matter, as to Timothy and Titus being bishops of 
Ephesus and Crete, in any writer of the first three centU' 
riesy"^ The thing refutes itself in Eusebius, as to Titus, 
by saying that he was bishop of the " churches," eKKkeaicov, 
in the plural, in Crete. No such thing occurs in the ear- 
liest Christian writers as that of any man being bishop of 
more than one church, {one parish.) This was seldom, if 
ever, more than a single congregation. Timothy, the 
New Testament says, was an evangelist : most probably 
Titus was so too. No place of residence is mentioned as 
to either of them : it is likely they had none, but travelled 
anywhere under the direction of the apostles, to set in 
order in new churches the things that remained to be set- 
tled. All beyond this is doubtful : all contrary to it is 
false. Bishop Pearson, whom all Churchmen will allow 
to be unexceptionable authority, positively declares that 
Eusebius had no archives or diptychs to go by ; and he 
says, the supposition that he had Catalogues of the Roman 
bishops is utterly/ vain — " conjecturam vanissimam esse.''^^ 
As to bishops of Rome, we shall immediately see that 
Eusebius is contradicted by others. There is no cer- 
tainty. 

Dr. H. adroitly slips by a difficulty of no small magni- 
tude, by tracing his own spiritual descent from Peter or 
Paul, Linus, &c. " There is a Trpwrov "i^evdog in this 
case lies at the bottom," says Dr. Cave, " it being gene- 
rally taken for granted^ that St. Peter was in a proper sense 
bishop of Rome, which yet I believe can never be made 
good."| It is a question never yet settled, whether Peter 
ever was at Rome ; but all the authority there is for Linus, 
Cletus, and Clemens, as links in the chain, make them to 
have derived it from Peter, and not from Paul. Now Arch- 
bishop Cranmer says, " It is not even certain that Peter 
ever was at Rome.^^^ The very learned Flacius Illyricus 
declares himself doubtful whether Peter ever was at Rome.|| 
The learned Zanchius, another eminent reformer, has 

* Whitby's Preface to the Epistle to Titus. 
t Pearsoni 0pp. Posth. de Siiccessione, diss, i, cap. ii. 
t Dr. Cave on the Government of the Ancient Church, pp. 9, 10, ed. 
1683, 12mo. Lond. 

§ Burnet's Ref , book ii, A. D. 1534. 

II Catalog. Test. Ver., v. I, pp. 484, 485, edit, secund. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 217 

shown enough to make any candid person stand in doubt 
on the same subject.* 

However, suppose we grant this, and even reckon Peter 
the first bishop of Rome : then who succeeded Peter ? No 
man on earth can tell. One mentions one person, another 
says it was another, and these the very witnesses who are 
cited to prove the point. " The fathers," says Dr. Dwight, 
" however sincere, and however satisfactory their testi- 
mony, concerning facts which passed under their own 
eyes, yet received traditionary accounts loosely : and both 
believed and recorded much of what took place before their 
time without truth or evidence." Bishop Taylor himself 
says, " the fathers were infinitely deceived in their ac- 
count and enumeration of traditions. ^^j Now Tertullian, 
Rufinus, and Epiphanius, say Clement succeeded Peter. 
Jerome declares that " most of the Latin authors supposed 
the order to be Clement the successor of Peter." But Ire- 
naeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine, conti^adict the 
above authorities, and say Linus succeeded Peter ; Chry- 
sostom seems to go the same way. Bishop Pearson has 
proved that Linus died before Peter ; and therefore, on the 
supposition that Peter was first bishop of Rome, Linus 
could not succeed him. Cabassute, the learned Popish 
historian of the Councils, says, "It is a very doubtful 
question concerning Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as to 
which of them succeeded Peter." Dr. Comber, a very 
learned divine of the Church of England, says, " Upon the 
whole matter, there is no certainty who was bishop of 
Rome, next to the apostles, and therefore the Romanists" 
{N.B., Romanists) "build upon an ill bottom, when 
they lay so great weight on their personal succession."^ 

But who was the third bishop of Rome ? for of the second 
there is no certainty to be had. Here the confusion is 
greater still. The Roman Catalogues — the Catalogues of 
high Churchmen — must have somebody, so they put Cletus 
in. Hear Dr. Comber again : " The like blunder there 
is about the next pope, [bishop of Rome,] the fabulous 
Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus, and gives us seve- 
ral Lives of Cletus, and Anacletus, making them of several 

* Zanchius de Ecclesia, cap. 9. 

t Liberty of Prophesying, sec. 5. 

t Dr. Comber on *' Roman Forgeries in Councils," part i, c. 1. 

10 



218 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

nations, and to have been popes at different times, putting 
Clement between them. Yet the aforesaid learned bishop 
of Chester [Pearson] proves these were only two names 
of the SAME person ; but the notes" (of the Popish editors 
of the Councils) " attempt to justify the forged Pontifical^ 
by impudently affirming that Ignatius, (Anacletus's contem- 
porary,) Irenseus, Eusebius, St. Augustine, and Optatus, 
were all mistaken, or all wronged by their transcribers, 
who leave out Cletus. But every candid reader will 
rather believe the mistake to be in the Pontifical, (which 
is a mere heap of errors,) and in the Roman Martyrology 
and Missal, which blindly followed it, rather than in those 
ancient and eminent fathers. And every one may see the 
folly of the Romish Church, which venerates two several 
saints on two several days, one of which never had a real 
being ; for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus^s 
nameT — Dr. Comber, ut supra. 

It must be evident to every reader, that as Dr. Hook, 
(fee, maintain the same unbroken line of bishops with the 
Roman Pontifical, Dr. Comber's remarks apply directly to 
their succession in common with that of the Papists. The 
Pontifical is the Romish book containing the lives and 
pretended decrees of the early popes, according to the 
opinion of the Church of Rome. Their Catalogues are 
generally made from it : it is justly denominated a forgery 
by Dr. Comber. What a triumphant succession ! whose 
main authority is a forgery.* 

Then loho was fourth bishop of Rome ? The Papists, 
Dr. Hook, &c., say Clement was. Dr. Hook does not 
distinctly make Peter bishop of Rome ; but this makes no 
material difference. Now we have heard that Tertullian, 
Rufinus, Epiphanius, and, according to Jerome, " most of 
the Latin authors," say he was second bishop, and suc- 
ceeded next to Peter. Platina, the Popish biographer of 
the popes, a high authority in his way, says, that just be- 
fore Peter's martyrdom he appointed Clement to be bishop 
of Rome ; and all this while he gives twenty-three years 
to the presidency of Linus and Cletus as preceding Cle- 
ment in that bishopric. Peter had been dead twenty years 

* That this Pontifical is a forgery is proved beyond a doubt by- 
numerous authors ; among others, see Howell's Pontificate, Dupin's 
Bibliotheca Patrum, Jewers Defence. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 219 

when Clement is said to become bishop ; and yet they say 
Peter made him bishop of Rome ! Cabassnte says, " the 
whole question is very douhtful^ Prideaux, a stanch and 
learned Churchman, says, " no certainty is to be had." 
Howell, a thorough Churchman, and learned writer, after 
going at length into what he calls the stupidity and fables 
of the Romanists on this point, concludes : — ■" Here it is 
evident how very doubtful and uncertain is the personal suc- 
cession of the Roman bishops." Dr. Comber concludes 
this point by remarking, that the stupidity and fable here 
are ^^ a, sufficient proof there is neither truth nor cer- 
tainty in the pretended personal succession of the first 
popes." Dr. Hook must set his priests, curates, and dea- 
cons to work. Here is enough to do for the Rev. Mr. 
Ward, the Rev. Mr. Ayliffe Poole, &c., with the Rev. Dr. 
Hook to assist them. 

Similar confusion is to be found in several succeeding 
parts. Platina, who had as good opportunity as any man 
to know the truth of history, as to the succession of the 
popes, &c., acknowledges that the authorities on the sub- 
ject, in several of the following centuries, were full of 
confusion.* " And he complains," says Prideaux, " that 
they who were appointed as protonotaries to register the 
passages in the church were in his time become so illite* 
rate, that some of them could scarce write their own names 
in Latin." Fine chroniclers ! on whose faithfulness and 
accuracy to place the existence of our Christianity ! Pri- 
deaux remarks in another place, A.D. 858, that ^^ Onu- 
phrius, Platina, Ciaconius, complain much of the neglect 
of registering, [and] the confusion of their popes' lives, 
notwithstanding their succession is made such a con- 
vincing argument." 

The elections of the bishops of Rome increase the 
doubts of a serious inquirer here. They were, even long 
before the time of Vitalianus, such scenes of intrigue, con- 
tention, violence, and bloodshed, that there is far greater 
probability that, Scripturally speaking, the most orthodox 
and excellent person was thrown out, and a heretic, as 
Liberius, or a murderer, usurped the seat, than that any 
thing like a legitimate succession constantly took place. 

Bishop Burnet shows that for about three hundred years 

* See his LiveR of Anicetus I., John XIII. and XV. 



220 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

" the popes were made upon the emperors' mandates. Nor 
did the emperors part easily with this right, but, after that, 
the Othos and the Henrys kept up their pretension, and 
came oft to Rome, and made many popes ; and though 
most of the popes so made were generally anti-popes and 
schismatics, yet some of them, as Clement the Second, 
are put in the Catalogues" — the succession — " of the 
Popes by Baronius and Binnius ; and by the late publish- 
ers of the Councils, Labbee and Cossartius. There was 
indeed great opposition made to this at Rome ; but let even 
their own historians be appealed to, what a series of 
MONSTERS, and not men, those popes" — succession bishops 
— " were ; how infamously they were elected, often by 
THE whores of Rome, and how flagitious they were, we 
refer it to Baronius himself, who could not deny this for 
all his partiality in his great work."* A fine uninterrupted 
" series — of monsters" — apostolical bishops — " elected 
often by the whores of Rome ! P^ A pretty spiritual de- 
scent for high Church priests ! ! 

As Cardinal Baronius was one of the greatest champions 
of Popery, his testimony to the wickedness employed in 
the ELECTION of the popes is above all exception. He 
says, speaking of the beginning of the tenth century, " O ! 
what was then the face of the holy Roman Church ! how 
filthy, when the vilest and most powerful whores ruled in 
the court of Rome ! by whose arbitrary sway diocesses 
were made and unmade, bishops were consecrated, and — 
which is inexpressibly horrible to be mentioned ! — false 
POPES, THEIR PARAMOURS, wcro thrust iuto the chair of 
Peter, who, in being numbered as popes serve no purpose 
except to FILL UP the Catalogues of the Popes of 
Rome. For who can say that persons thrust into the 
popedom without any law by whores of this sort were 
legitimate popes of Rome ? In these elections no mention 
is made of the acts of the clergy, either by their choosing 
the pope at the time of his election, or of their consent 
afterward. All the canons were suppressed into silence, 
the voice of the decrees of former pontiffs was not allowed 
to be heard, ancient traditions were proscribed, the customs 
formerly practised in electing the pope, with the sacred 

* Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England, p. 50, 
4to., second edition. Lond., 1688, 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 221 

rites, and pristine usages, were all extinguished. In this 
manner, lust, supported by secular power, excited to 
frenzy in the rage for domination, ruled in all things." 
His own words are — 

" QucB tunc fades sanctcB EcclesicB Roman(B ! qudm fm- 
dissima cum RomcB dominarentur potentissimcB cequ^ et sor- 
didissimm meretrices ! quarum arhitrio mutarentur sedes^ 
darentur Episcopi, et quod auditu horrendum et infandum 
est, intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum amassii Pseudo- 
Pontijices, que non sint nisi ad consignanda tantum tempora 
in catalogo Romanorum Pontijicum scripti. Quis enim a 
scortis hujusmodi intrusos sine lege legitimos dicere posset 
Romanos fuisse Pontifices ? Nusquam Cleri eligentis, vel 
postea consentientis aliqua mentio. Canones omnes pressi 
silentio, decreta Pontijicum suffocata, proscriptcB antique 
traditiones, veteresque in elegendo Summo Pontijice consue- 
tudines, sacrique ritus, et pristinus usus prorsus extincti. 
Sic vendicaverat omnia sihi libido, smculari potentia freta, 
insaniens, cBstro percita dominandiP* 

We shall afterward show clearly that the English bishops 
frequently received their ordination from Rome, nearly down 
to the time of the Reformation. Dr. Hook and others wish 
to get over this point, and so to shun the abominations of 
the bishops and the Church of Rome, in the middle ages. 
The evidence is flatly against them. Consequently — 

The SCHISMS of the popedom are another proof of the 
impossibility of tracing this " unbroken line" from Peter. 
Some of the Popish historians themselves, Onuphrius 
Panvinius for instance, grant that there had been above 
twenty schisms in the popedom before the end of the four- 
teenth century. Some of these schisms continued {oy forty 
years, and some longer. Sometimes four pretenders to the 
popedom existed at the same time ; and the whole church, 
the whole of Europe, was equally divided against itself. 
Now when two, three, or four pretended bishops of Rome 
laid claim to the chair at the same time, it is impossible 
that they could all be legitimate claimants to the same 
chair. It was generally contrived either to depose, or 
banish, or poison, or murder, one or more of them. Fre- 
quently the most cunning, the most powerful, the most 

* Ann. Eccles., torn, x, p. 679, 1603, as cited by R. Southey, Esq., 
in his Vindicise Ecclesise Anglicanae, p. 389. Lond., 1826. 



222 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

warlike, or the most wicked of them, succeeded in deposing 
his less cunning, less powerful, less warlike, or less wicked 
opponent. For the proofs* of all that is here said, let the 
reader peruse Platina's Lives of the Popes, Bishop Jewel's 
Apology, and the " Defense" of that Apology ; as well as 
many other authorities of a like nature. Now, who can 
trace the true succession, when the whole church was divided 
against itself? cardinals against cardinals, councils against 
councils, and nations against nations ? Could faction, and 
poison, and murder, and loars and bloodshed, which alone 
decided in these schisms, could these settle the true sue- 
cession ? Answer, ye modern boasters about your spiritual 
descent through this unbroken line ! 

Dr. Wells, indeed; says, " The plurality of popes at the 
same time doth not in the least prejudice the succession of 
ordination : and your [Mr. Dowley's] thinking otherwise 
is only a proof of your not knowing, that the same person 
which is not a rightful pope, yet may be a rightful bishop ; 
and, consequently, may have a just right to exercise the 
power of ordination, though he may not have a just right 
to exercise the papal authority, as received in the Church 
of Rome. And this consideration being of universal ex- 
tent, I purposely pass by others, which might be urged in 
reference to our church in particular."*' Now, to prevent 
any high Church doctor of divinity injuring the opinion of 
his '' superiority" over a dissenting teacher, it may not be 
amiss to give him the following information : — 

1. That the translation of bishops from one see or 
bishopric to another, was prohibited by several important 
councils; as the council of Nice, can. 15; council of 
Antioch, A. D. 341, can. 21 ; council of Chalcedon, A.D. 
451, can. 5, and several others. This, therefore, as a rule, 
would prevent any individual previously a bishop from baing 
elected bishop or pope of Rome. 

2. That for nearly a thousand years it does not appear 
that any individual, previously a bishop, was elected bishop 
of Rome. During this tirtie there had been one hundred 
bishops, or popes of Rome, and thirteen schisms in the 
popedom ; that is, there had been thirteen times two or 
three pretenders, at the same time, to the same chair or 

* Dr. Wells' Answer to Mr. Dowley's Letter, p. 39, edit. 1716, 
12mo. Lond. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 223 

bishopric. The man, therefore, who was a usurper as a 
pope, was no bishop ; yet the succession comes through 
these numerous usurpers and murderers. 

3. That, according to the general principles of the 
church, no man can be a bishop who was not previously a 
presbyter: all others were really no more than laymen. 
The consecration of a bishop was not ordination to the 
Christian ministry, but a mere ecclesiastical ceremony. 
Now, numbers of the bishops of Rome were nothing but 
laymen at their consecration. They ne\^er were, therefore, 
ordained to the Christian ministry. They had no Christian 
orders ; of course they could not give what they had not. 
Yet the succession, the spiritual descent of ordination, 
comes through these mere laymen to our, high Church 
clergymen ; and to all who depend upon Popish succes- 
sion, and Popish episcopal ordinations, for the validity of 
their ministry. 

4. Several of these pretenders to the popedom being 
nothing but presbyters, were, after being elected bishops 
of Rome, deposed as usurpers : yet these mere usurpers, 
who never were really bishops, ordained several of the 
English bishops and archbishops, who, according to 
this scheme, continued for many years to give false orders 
to the BISHOPS and clergy in England. See the twelfth 
section, and the notes to the table of bishops there. 

The early history of the bishops of Rome abounds 
in contradiction; the later records are all confusion; the 
elections were frequently scenes of bloodshed; and the 
numerous schisms about the popedom were interminable. 
Therefore — 

Historic evidence of an " unbroken line of descent 
from Peter" down to the present bishops of England 
UTTERLY fails. The bold bravado is a fable ; and is 
discreditable to those who make it. 



224 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 



SECTION XL 

NULLITY OF THE POPISH ORDINATIONS CHARACTER OF 

THE POPISH CHURCH, AND POPISH BISHOPS, BEFORE 
AND AT THE REFORMATION. 

We have seen the root of this high Church scheme 
of Anglican Popery cut up in the proof of the equality hy 
divine right of all Christian ministers ; and, in the last 
section, the boast of an wihroken line of power to bind all 
consciences to that scheme has perished in the fire of 
probation. Another point remains to be a little more dis- 
tinctly examined : it is the question of the validity of Popish 
ordinations. The spiritual descent of our high Church 
succession men essentially depends, among other things, 
upon the validity of Popish episcopal ordinations, before 
and at the Reformation. We shall show these Popish 
episcopal ordinations to have been no ordinations in a 
Scriptural sense ; to have been null and void to all intents 
and purposes as ordinations to the Christian ministry. In 
this section, we will first give a brief character of the 
Church of Rome, and of the bishops of Rome, before the 
Reformation. 

As to the Church of Rome, the reformers, with 
one voice, declared it to be antichrist, and guilty of 

IDOLATRY. 

The Homilies of the Church of England are decisive 
as tonhe views of the English reformers. "Now, con- 
cerning excessive decking of images and idols, with paint- 
ing, gilding, adorning with precious vestures, pearl and 
stone, what is it else, but for the further provocation and 
enticement to spiritual fornication, to deck spiritual harlots 
most costly and wantonly, which the idolatrous church 
understandeth well enough. For she being indeed not 
only an harlot, (as the Scripture calleth her,) but also 
a foul, filthy, old, withered harlot, (for she is indeed of 
ancient years,) and understanding her lack of natural and 
true beauty, and great loathsomeness which of herself she 
hath, doth (after the custom of such harlots) paint herself, 
and deck and tire herself with gold, pearl, stone, and all 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 225 

kinds of precious jewels, that she, shining with the out- 
ward beauty and glory of them, may please the foolish 
phantasie of fond lovers, and so entice them to spiritual 
fornication with her, who, if they saw her, (I will not say 
naked,) but in simple apparel, would abhor her as the 
foulest and filthiest harlot that ever was seen ; according 
as appeareth by the description of the garnishing of the 
great strumpet of all strumpets, the mother of whoredom, 
set forth by St. John in his Revelation, who by her glory 
provoked the princes of the earth to commit whoredom 
with her."* '' Wherefore it followeth, that there is like 
foolishness and lewdness in decking of our images as 
GREAT PUPPETS FOR OLD FOOLS, like children, to play the 
wicked play of idolatry, as was before among the ethnicks 
and gentiles. Our churches stand full of such great pup- 
pets, wondrously decked and adorned ; garlands and coro- 
nets be set on their heads, precious pearls hanging about 
their necks, their fingers shine with rings set with precious 
stones, their dead and stiff bodies are clothed with gar- 
ments stiff wuth gold. You would believe that the images 
of our men-saints were some princes of Persia land with 
their proud apparel, and the idols of our women-saints were 
NICE and WELL-TRIMMED HARLOTS, tempting their para- 
mours to wantonness : whereby the saints of God are not 
honoured, but most dishonoured, and their godliness, sober- 
ness, chastity, contempt of riches, and of the vanity of the 
world, defaced and brought in doubt their sober and godly 
lives. And because the whole pageant must thoroughly 
be played, it is not enough thus to deck idols, but at last 
come in the priests themselves, likewise decked with gold 
and pearl, that they may be meet servants for such lords 
and ladies, and fit worshippers of such gods and goddesses. 
And with a solemn pace they pass forth before these golden 
puppets, and fall down to the ground on their marrowbones 
before these honourable idols, and then rising up again, 
offer up odours and incense unto them, to give the people 
an example of double idolatry, by worshipping not only 
the idol, but the gold and riches wherewith it is garnished. 
Which things the most part of our old martyrs, rather than 
they would do, or once kneel, or offer up one crumb of 
incense before an image, suflfered most cruel and terrible 

* Homily against Idolatry, third part. 
|0* 



226 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

deaths, as the histories of them at large do declare."* 
Such is the view given by the reformers of the Chm'ch 
of England, ratified by convocation, and esta^blished as the 
dbctrine of the Church of England on this point. See the 
35th article. Dr. Hook, the Oxford Tract-men, &c., have 
solemnly subscribed to this article, declaring that the Ho- 
milies " contain godly and wholesome doctrine. "^^ And yet 
these men defame and hate the Reformation and the re- 
formers, despise the name and the principles of Protest- 
antism, and openly declare their design to form a 
half-way house, a " via media^'^ between Popery and 
Protestantism ! 

Let us come to the bishops of Rome, In the Common 
Prayer, as published in the time of Edward VI., the ioX- 
lowing petition made part of the litany : — " From the ty- 
ranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormi- 
ties, good Lord deliver us." The Convocation at Dublin, 
1615, says, "The bishop of Rome is so far from being the 
supreme head of the universal church of Christ, that his 
works and doctrine do plainly discover him to be the man of 
sin, foretold in Holy Scripture, whom the Lord shall con- 
sume with the spirit of his mouth, and abolish with the 
brightness of his coming." 

The reformed church of France, in Synodo Papinsensi, 
article 31, says, " Whereas the bishop of Rome having 
erected to himself a monarchy over the Christian world, 
doth usurp a dominion over all churches and pastors ; and 
hath rose to such a height of pride, as to call himself God, 
will be adored, and all power to be given him in heaven 
and earth ; disposeth of all ecclesiastical things ; defines 
articles of faith, saith the authority of the Scriptures, and 
the interpretation of it, to be from him ; maketh merchan- 
dise of souls, dispenseth with vows and oaths ; institutes 
new worships of God. As also in civil affairs, treads upon 
the lawful authority of the magistrate, in giving, taking 
away, translating of empires ; we do believe and assert 
him to be the very proper antichrist, son of perdition 
foretold in the word of God, the scarVet harlot, sitting on 
seven mountains in the great city ; which hath obtained a 
rule over the kings of the earth : and we do expect when 
the Lord, according to his promise, and as he hath begun, 

* Homily against Idolatry, third part. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 227 

will destroy him with the spirit of his mouth, and at 
length abolish with the brightness of his coming."* 

See, in the same place, the authorities of the Waldenses, 
Wickliffe, Bishops Jewel, Abbot, Whitgift, Andrews, Bil- 
son. Hall, Downham, Moreton, Davenant, and Prideaux; 
also Hooker, Arminius, &c., all declaring their belief that 
the Church and pope of Rome were antichrist. 

As to the bishops and clergy of Rome, more distinctly, 
Fox, the martyrologist, says, — " And to begin first with 
the order and qualities of life, I ask here of this Roman 
clergy, where was this church of theirs which now is, in 
the ancient time of the primitive Church of Rome, with 
this pomp and pride, with this riches and superfluity, with 
this gloria mundi, and name of cardinals, with this prancing 
dissoluteness and whoring of the curtisans, with this extor- 
tion, bribing, buying and selling of spiritual dignities, 
these annats, reformations, procurations, exactions, and 
other practices for money, this avarice insatiable, ambi- 
tion intolerable, fleshly filthiness most detestable, barba- 
rousness and negligence in preaching, promise breaking 
faithlessness, poisoning and supplanting one another, with 
such schisms and divisions, which never were more seen 
than in the elections and court of Rome these seven 
HUNDRED years, with such extreme cruelty, malice, and 
tyranny, in burning and persecuting their poor brethren 
to death ?" 

It would be endless to enumerate the wickedness of the 
bishops of Rome : volumes might be filled with the accounts 
of them from good authorities. How wonderful it must 
be to a simple-hearted Protestant, accustomed only to the 
teachings of the Scriptures, to learn that any persons call- 
ing themselves ministers of a Protestant church, should 
suppose that men so monstrously voicked should be able to 
communicate any spiritual blessings or spiritual authority 
to others ! Yet such is the case with a certain class of 
the divines of the Church of England, w^ho adopt such 
principles in order to maintain the figment of a personal 
succession of episcopal consecrations, &c. This makes 
it necessary to our argument, that we produce some au- 

* Certain discourses of Archbishop Usher's and Bishop Bedell's, pub- 
lished and enlarged by Nicholas Bernard, D.D., &:c., pp. 143, &:c., 12mo. 
London, 1659. 



228 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

thorities to show the true character of the bishops of Rome. 
We shall assert nothing but from authors of undisputed credit. 
1. Popes monsters in wickedness. — "Pope Vigilius, 
A. D. 540," says Howell, " wades to the pontifical throne 
through his successors' [predecessors] blood.^^ Platina says, 
" that when he was leaving Rome for Constantinople, the 
Roman people pelted him with sticks and stones, loading 
him with curses and reproaches as he went along : adding 
this execration, * According to the evils which thou hast 
committed against the Roman people, may evil come upon 
thy own head!'" He was conveyed to Constantinople to 
answer for himself. While there, he was, in the presence 
of the empress, nearly beaten to death. He fled into 
the temple of Euphemia. " From this he was driven by 
force, and was then dragged through the whole city with 
a rope round his neck like a thief, ^^ says Platina, " until eve- 
ning. He died at Syracuse, on his way back to Rome." 
Pope Pelagius was obliged to clear himself of the suspi- 
cion of murdering Vigilius, by swearing his innocence 
upon the crucifix and the gospels. Howell, in this place, 
" challenges the world to produce, either from sacred or prO' 
fane story, any one series, generation, or order of men to this 
day, that has been guilty of such failings, weakness, un- 
steadiness, cruelty, SfC, as they have^^ Boniface HI. be- 
came pope A. D. 606. This man obtained the popedom 
of Phocas, who had murdered Mauritius, the emperor, and 
had become emperor in his place. Boniface contended 
with the patriarch of Constantinople about the title of 
" universal bishop." To end this controversy, he obtained 
the point, that the bishop of Rome alone should be called 
papa or pope, (a term before that time common to all bish- 
ops,) and the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Anti- 
och, and Jerusalem, were henceforward to be distinguished 
by the name oi patriarch. Here we find the pope lording 
it over the whole church. Accordingly, Prideaux reckons 
this Boniface as the ^r^*^ of what he terms " usurping Nim- 
rods ;" and the beginning of " the kingdom of the heast,^^ 
Rev. xiii. So Flacius Illyricus, who reckons thirty-nine 
popes in this "kingdom" up to John VHI. Mohammed, 
the false prophet, arose about this time, along with the 
kingdom of the beast, as another curse to the church. 

* Pontificate, p. 88. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 229 

Pope Constantine, A. D. 707, envied the independence 
of the archbishop of Ravenna, who claimed equality with 
the bishop of Rome. Indeed, the Popish historians grant 
that the exarchs of Ravenna had been accustomed even to 
confirm the election of the pope. By means, however, of 
Justinian, the emperor. Pope Constantine obtained the 
subjugation of Felix, the archbishop of Ravenna. " The 
city was taken by siege, and the archbishop's eyes were 
put out with a red hot concave brazen vessel.'''* 

The popes Constantine, Gregory II., &c., distinguished 
themselves in favour of image worship. In this controversy, 
they excommunicated the emperors of the East ; forbade 
their subjects to pay the accustomed taxes or tribute ; and 
actually severed the states of the West from their allegi- 
ance to the emperor. They then managed to set tRe sub- 
ordinate governors of the West against each other, in order 
to destroy all that opposed their ambitious schemes. All 
the facts of the case are acknowledged and defended by 
Platina and Ciaconius. In this way they managed to 
have the exarchate of Ravenna destroyed, because the ex- 
arch and the archbishop withstood the ambition of the 
pope and Church of Rome. The king and kingdom of 
Lombardy shared the same fate : and most of the cities 
and territories of these states were given, by the governors 
of France, to the pope ; and the pope (Leo III.) in return, 
set up Charles the Great, or Charlemagne, as emperor of 
the West, for the professed purpose of making him the 
defender of the popedom ; so says Ciaconius.* What suc- 
cessors of the apostles ! dethroning sovereigns, and setting 
up others against them ; encouraging their subjects in rebel- 
lion ; prohibiting custom ; destroying kingdoms, and spread- 
ing war and bloodshed throughout JEurope, to gratify their 
own ambition, and for the purpose of defending the wor- 
shipping of images : and this at the very time when the 
Mohammedan conquerors were making this image loorship 
a ground of the devastations they were bringing upon the 
Christian church at large ! 

We now come to the history of Pope Joan. Some 
learned Protestants have good naturedly given up this his- 
tory : and we are not going to contend about it. Yet we 
may say, without any fear of contradiction, that Papists 

* Page 226, ed. Rom^, 1601. 



230 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

hold a thousand things as true, for which they have not 
half the evidence that there is for the fact, that there actu- 
ally was A FEMALE in disguise elected and confirmed as 
Pope John VIII. ; " that," says Platina, " she became 
with child by some of those about her ; and that she mis- 
carried and died in her way to the Lateran church, or 
temple." Platina says, also, that her " pontificate lasted 
one year, one month, and four days." He remarks that 
the authors who state these things were obscure; yet he 
acknowledges that, in his day, " almost every body affLr7ned 
them to be true^'' — ^'' fere omnes affirmant ^ Prideaux de- 
clares that there are fifty authorities belonging to the 
Church of Rome in favour of it. Flacius Illyricus gives 
authorities at considerable length ; and shows, from the 
testimonies of authors living near the times, and hence- 
forward for several hundreds of years, that during that 
time it was never doubted ; and the authors who mention 
it were Italians, relatives of popes, &c.* If half of the 
history of Popery, then, has any truth in it, there was 
really a female strumpet, as a link in this chain, as a pro- 
genitrix in this spiritual descent of Popish priests, Oxford 
Tract-men, Dr. Hook, &c. ! ! 

Martin XL, A. D. 883, raises a sedition, it is said, 
against Pope John, throws him into chains, and forces him 
to flee for his life. Hadrian HI., A. D. 884, " was a per- 
son of great promise," says Ciaconius, " but was taken 
away by Heaven to make way for the degenerate popes 
who followed, and who were sent as a judgment for the 
abounding sins of the people, and the world, at that time." 
What a holy line! Stephen VI., Howell says, is called 
by Labbe, the celebrated editor of the Councils, " the most 
wicked of men ; and that he is reckoned in the Papal 
Catalogue," — the succession, — " to prevent the danger of 
schism." " But," says Labbe, " though Pope Stephen 
was so wicked a man, the heretics ought not to insult us 
against the promise of Christ made to St. Peter and his 
church ; for all that Stephen said or did against Pope For- 
mosus, were mere acts oi phrenzy or fury ; but as he was 
lawfully invested with the pontifical authority, he could 
not err against the faith and good morals.''^ The pontifical 
authority, then, is authority to be the wickedest of men, with- 

* See Catalogns Testium Veritatis, vol. ii, pp. 179-189, ed, 1597. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 231 

out ERRING dLgSLinst faith and good morals ! What words 
can describe the abominations of this system ! ! 

Theodorus II. is represented by Platina as " seditious ;" 
John X. as " idle and worthless ;" and the rest, then abouts, 
as " lascivious.^^ Christopher throws his predecessors into 
prison, with great tumult, sedition, and the loss of many 
lives. " In so vitious a state," says Platina, " was the 
pontifical authority then, that a private person could, by 
violence and faction, seize it in a moment." He calls this 
pope Christopher " a wolfT The short lives of many of 
the popes about this time he interprets as a proof that 
God, in judgment, removed them quickly, as " certain 
MONSTERS — tanquam monstra quoBdam,^^ out of the way. 
Platina says that Clement II., A. D. 1048, '^ wb,s poisoned 
with poison, prepared, as it was supposed, by his suc- 
cessor, Pope Damasus II."* "This Damasus," says he, 
" invaded the chair by force. And this had become so 
ESTABLISHED A CUSTOM that any ambitious individual had 
the liberty of invading Peter's seat.^'f Here are apostoli- 
cal successors ! And even earlier than this, in the life of 
Benedict IV., A. D. 898, he says, " the chair of Peter 
was USURPED, rather than possessed by, monsters of 
WICKEDNESS, ambitiou and bribery." The whole passage 
is instructive, and deserves insertion. Speaking about 
the decline of the Roman empire, and the decay of its 
glory, through idleness and effeminacy, brought in by 
luxury, he says, " the same thing happened to the Papal 
dignity. The glory of the popedom was acquired by holiness 
of life, and the purity of doctrine of the bishops of Rome, 
accompanied with the severest toils, and the most consum- 
mate virtue, in their proceedings : by these means, and 
without the wealth and pomp of the world, it daily 
increased amidst the most hostile and obstinate persecutors 
of the Christian name : but as soon as the church began 
to wanton with wealth, her members forsaking their former 
strictness of living, turned to a general licentiousness of 
conduct. All civil restraint being removed, a general 
license of sinning everywhere prevailed. Hence these 
MONSTERS of wickcducss, by whom the most holy chair 
of Peter was, through their intrigues and bribes, rather 
USURPED than possessed." 

* Platina in Vita Clem. II. f In Vita Dam. II. 



233 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Sergius III., A. D. 903, "rescinded the acts of Pope 
Formosus, compelled those whom he had ordained to be 
reordained^ dragged his dead body from the sepulchre, he- 
headed him as though he were alive, and then threiv him into 
the Tiber ! — See," says Platina, " what a degenerate race ! 
They seek the pontificate by bribes, and having obtained it, 
they cast behind them all regard to the ivorship of God, and 
contending with each other like the most ferocious tyrants, 
that they may reign alone : afterward, none being left that 
can restrain them, they give themselves up to take their 
fill in voluptuousness and licentiousness."* 

A. D. 931. " The next," says Howell, " that takes the 
chair, is one whom they ought to call a devil, instead of 
pseudo-pope ; and yet he must be inserted in the Catalogue 
of the Popes ; though, according to their own confession, 
the vilest, blackest monster that ever yet defiled the holy 
purple. This was Pope John IX., son of Pope Sergius III., 
by the strumpet Marozia, (a blessed stock to take an infal- 
lible guide from,) by whose means he was intruded into 
the place of Stephen VII., though besides all other impe- 
diments, he was incapable of that high office in the church 
through want of years. This pontificate was a series of 
debaucheries, incest, &c., which would ofiend the modest 
reader to repeat."! 

" John XIIL," I quote Platina, " usurped the pontificate. 
From his youth up he had been contaminated with every 
vice, and all iniquity ; and if any of his time was spared 
from his libidinous pursuits, it was rather given to hunting 
than to prayer. A council of the bishops of Italy was 
called by the emperor that they might judge of the life of 
this MOST wicked of men. The pope, fearing the judgment 
of right-minded men, flies into the forest, and lies hid for 
some time in the woods, like a wild beast. The emperor 
departing, his friends recall him, [the pope,] but he is sup- 
posed to have perished by the judgment of God, lest the 
church should be ruined by the sedition arising on the 
subject. Some say that this most iniquitous man, or mon- 
ster rather, perished by being stabbed as taken in the act 
of adultery.''^ Such is Platina's account of this progenitor 
of high Church bishops and priests ! ! 

The scene becomes darker still through the following 
* Vita Sergii. III. f Pontificate, p. 188. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 233 

centuries. But the reader has had enough for proof of the 
point before us. It would be tedious and disgusting to 
wade through the filth of their proceedings. Platina, as 
we have seen, expressly calls some of them " monsters ;" 
and says, " they left no wickedness unpractised." Pope 
Sixtus IV. licensed brothels at Rome. Pope Alexander 
VI., A. D. 1492, is thus designated by Howell: — ''We 
are now come to one of the greatest and horriblest monsters 
in nature that could scandalize the holy chair. His beastly 
morals, his immense ambition, his insatiable avarice, his 
detestable cruelty, his furious lusts, and monstrous incest 
with his daughter Lucretia, are at large described by 
Guiccardine, Ciaconius, &c."* He that wishes to see 
more, may be wearied with the detail in the authorities 
mentioned ; and also in Bishop Jewel's Apology and his 
Defence. 

Popes heretics. — Indeed, if ever there were any here- 
tics I think it would be easy to prove that the whole 
popedom is one continued heresy. To be sure the 
Church of Rome has always held the doctrine of the 
trinity : so have thousands who have been denominated 
heretics. But while the Church of Rome has held that 
glorious doctrine in words, it has maintained in word and 
deed so many pernicious errors ahng with it; and has 
given such paramount importance to these errors, as by 
them to corrupt the whole gospel. The popedom has been 
the man of sin, the son of perdition, and antichrist ; the 
Church of Rome has been the " great whore''' which has 
corrupted the nations : this has been the solemn view of 
those best acquainted with the subject. The smatterers, 
and sciolists, and credulists, and liberalists of our day are 
schoolboys compared with such men. They are the 
betrayers of Protestanism. They are more allied in spirit 
to Babylon than they are to the New Jerusalem. 

The Papists acknowledge that Pope Liberius subscribed 
Arianism, communicated with Arians, and consented to the 
banishment of Athanasius — ^that he unhappily and basely 
fell\ — that Athanasius, Hilary, and Jerome, all counted 
him a heretic, is acknowledged by Morinus, De Ordina- 
tionibus, part ii, p. 284. Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to idols. 



* Pontificate, pp. 512-514. 
t Vid. Howell's Pontificate, p. 



43. 



234 GN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

'* He denied the fact," says Cabassute, " until he was con- 
victed on indubitable evidence." Seventy-two witnesses 
testified to the fact. They say it was through fear that he 
did it, in a time of persecution ; but so many things have 
been fabricated to wipe off this stain, that one can be sure 
of nothing about them. Here, on the heresy of the popes^ 
I will quote Bishop Jewel : " Pope Honorius was con- 
demned for a heretic in i^o general councils. In the coun- 
cil of Constantinople, the words of his condemnation be 
alleged thus : ' We have caused Honorius, the late pope 
of old Rome, to be accursed : for that in all things he follow- 
ed the mind of Sergius, the heretic, and confirmed his 
wicked doctrines.' In the very legend of Hilarius, it is 
mentioned that Pope Leo was an Arian heretic. In a synod 
holden at Rome against Pope Hildebrand, it is written thus : 
* Incendio tradidimus Decreta eorum Hmretica ;' — ^ We have 
burnt their heretical decrees.' Pope Sylvester II. was 
made pope by necromancy , and in recompense thereof, 
promised both body and soul unto the devil. The council 
of Basil condemneth Pope Eugenius by these words : ' We 
condemn and depose Pope Eugenius, a despiser of the holy 
canons ; a disturber of the peace and unity of the church 
of God ; a notorious offender of the whole universal 
church ; a simonist ; a forsworn man, {perjurum ;) a man 
uncorrigible ; a schismatic ; a man fallen from the faith, 
and a wilful heretic' Now if idolaters, Montanists, Arians, 
Monothelites, Nestorians, deniers of the immortality, si- 
monists, sorcerers, maintainers of filthiness, and other 
obstinate and wilful heretics may err, then — it is easily 
seen that the pope may err." 

^' Verily the council of Basil saith thus : ' It is reported 
and read that many popes have fallen into errors and here- 
sies : it is certain that the popes may err : the council 
hath oftentimes condemned and removed the pope, in 
respect as well of his heresy in faith, as of his lewdness 
in life.' "* 

Popes simoniacs. — The evidence of this would ^ZZ a 
volume. Platina states it repeatedly, that the pontificate 
was obtained by the basest purchase.! Dr. Whitby 

* Defence of the Apology, part vi, p. 536, &c., ed. 1609. 
t Vid. Platina de Vitis. Pontif., pp. 75, 79, 88, 103, 125, 126, 137, 
139, 143, 147, 149, &c., &c., fol. ed. Colon., 1582. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. ^ 235 

gives the following authorities as to the eleventh century ; 
" Glaber, the monk, informs us, that the emperor, Henry 
II., having convened all his archbishops and bishops in 
France and Germany, told them, * that all ecclesiastical de- 
grees, even from the popedom to the doorkeepers, were op- 
pressed with damnable simony, and that this spiritual rohhery 
obtained in all places ; and that the bishops, not being 
able to deny this charge, fled to the emperor's mercy, 
who said to them. Go your way, and what you have un- 
lawfully obtained, endeavour to dispose of well.' " 

" Century 12. — St. Bernard, in his commentary on 
Psalm xix, saith, ' that the offices of ecclesiastical dignity 
are turned into fi^^Jiy lucre and a work of darkness."* In his 
oration of the conversion of St. Paul, he adds, ' that now 
all ecclesiastical degrees are given as an occasion oi filthy 
lucre.^ In his Book of Considerations, written to Pope 
Eugenius, he insinuates, that ^ ambitious, covetous, sacri- 
legious, simoniacal, incestuous persons, fornicators, and such 
like monsters of mankind, flowed from all parts oi Xh.Q world 
to Rome, that by the apostolical authority they either might 
obtain, or keep ecclesiastical honours,' and puts this ques- 
tion to the pope, * Who is there of that whole great city, 
who received thee as a pope, without the intervention of 
some price, or hopes of some priceV ' these,' saith he, 'are 
rather pastors of devils, than of sheep.' " 

" Century 13. — Matthew Paris, speaking of the mis- 
erable state of the Church of England, saith, ' then simony 
was committed without shame.' " 

" Century 14. — Marsilius of Padua, saith, ' that men 
ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, undisciplined, and notori- 
ously criminal, were placed in the highest thrones of the 
church by simony : that they who have visited the Church 
of Rome, may see plainly, and they who were never there, 
may learn from an infinite number of men of credit, that it 
is become a receptacle of all rogues and trickers, for all 
wares both spiritual and temporal. For what is there but 
a concourse of simoniacs from all places.' "* 

Prideaux, whose work was revised and published by his 
uncle, the learned bishop of Worcester, numbers among 
the popes " thirty-eight usurping Nimrods ; forty luxurious 
Sodomites; forty Egyptian magicians; forty-one devour- 

* Whitby's Sermons, No. 11, Appendix, 8vo. 



236 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ing Abaddons ; twenty incurable Babylonians.''^^ Prideaux 
was a stanch Churchman. A few extracts from him will 
show the reader his opinion more in detail. We have 
seen that he acknowledges " ?io certainty is to be had" as 
to the 'personal succession of the early bishops of Rome ; 
and, in the close of section 3, he asks, " whether that suc- 
cession may conduce to the pope's supremacy, which 
faultereth and faileth in the first foundation ?" Dr. 
Hook keeps hold of Rome up to Vitalianus. Now it is 
somewhat ominous that Vitalianus is the very pope in 
whose reign, as Prideaux remarks, the number of the least, 
QQQ, was completed. His words are : — " Theodorus, a 
Greek, and one Hadrian, an African, are sent hither into 
England by him to bring in the Latin service, being the 
year 666, just the number of the beast ; of which the word 
Xarsivog and ennXeoia iraXcjca (by Baleus's reckoning) 
give a shrewd account." This Theodore was made arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and brought into England the 
service of the beast, if Prideaux and Bale were right. 
Through him Dr. Hook traces his spiritual descent. " Here, 
about the year 666, (the number of the apocalyptical beast,) 
Phocas, the parricide, that slew his master Mauritius ; 
Boniface, [pope,] the purchaser of supremacy of that vil- 
lain by simony ; and Mohammed, the grand impostor, break 
forth together."! " Boniface VH," Baronius saith, " was 
rather a thief, a murderer, and a traitor to his coun- 
try, than a pope. "J His inquiries at the end of section 7, 
are such as the following : — " Whether Marozia^s and her 
di'aM^iex's pope-maMng discovereth not the skirt of the 
whore of Babylon ? Whether bastards, bribers, and atheists 
may be acknowledged for Christ's vicars, or St. Peter's 
successors 1 Whether Boniface VH., robbing the church 
treasury, and purchasing with it afterward the popedom, 
which he had forfeited, include not in it sacrilege and 
simony .^"^ Again : '' Now comes Hildebrand, the Hetru- 
rian, (A. D. 1075,) under the name of Gregory VH., with- 
out any election of emperors or clergy, but only by his 
own intrusion. He had poisoned some six or seven popes, 
by Brazutus, before he could get the popedom himself." || 
In concluding section 8, — " In the compass of this period 

* Introduction for reading Histories, p. 67. t Page 99. 
X Page 108. ^ Page 110. i! Pages 117, 118. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 237 

are found, besides a knot of conjurors, and poisoners, a 
crew of devilish rebels, abusing religioii to varnish their 
damnable designs. '^'^ Maximilian, (A. D. 1510,) the empe- 
ror, was wont to say, " O eternal God, if thou shouldest 
not watch over us, how ill would it go with the world 
which we govern ? I, a miserable hunter, and that drunk- 
ard and wicked [pope] Julius P*^ 

Such are the men, " the monsters^'^ who, according to 
the principles of Popery, are " the rock'' upon which the 
church of Christ is built, and against it, as so built, the 
gates of hell are never Jo prevail ; — such are the men, 
''X\ie monsters'' who are believed to be the successors of 
St. Peter, and the vicars of Christ, to which monsters 
Popery says, Christ has given supreme power over the 
whole church upon earth ; — such are the men, " the mon- 
sters," through whom our high Churchmen trace their 
spiritual descent ! Their glory is their shame. 



SECTION XII. 

POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS BEFORE THE 

REFORMATION. 

The reader will keep in mind that the particular point 
now before us is, the nullity oi Popish ordinations of 
English bishops before the Reformation. In the last sec- 
tion was exhibited a brief view of the monstrous wicked- 
ness, heresy, and simony of the popes themselves. The 
popes were the head and origin of episcopacy in those 
times. The master of the house at that time was, indeed, 
Beelzebub ; what then was his household, the bishops 
under him, and derived from him ? In this section we 
shall show that the episcopal ordinations in the English 
Church came through this "series of monsters," the popes 
of Rome. Sometimes this is denied ; and an attempt is 
made to claim a better line of succession through the an- 
cient British bishops. We shall briefly state the matter 
of the British bishops, and then pass on to the proof of 
the point proposed in this section. 

* Page 143. 



238 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

The first planting of Christianity in Great Britain is 
involved in impenetrable obscurity. The earliest authen- 
tic mention of bishops in Great Britain is A.D. 359. The 
Saxons came over about^A. D. 450. They were enemies 
to Christianity, and established idolatry on its ruins in a 
great part of the island. Gildas (who wrote about A. D. 
564) gives a shocking account of the wickedness of all 
ranks, and of the misery of the country in his days. He 
speaks of '^ bishops or presbyters," several times. It is 
somewhat remarkable, that he never, I believe, uses the 
conjunction copulative, and; but always, I think, the dis- 
junctive, or — "bishops or presbyters," as though at that 
time, in England, one was understood to imply the other. 
The English reformers, in their account of the divine in- 
stitution of bishops and priests, frequently do the same ; 
and expressly declare, individually, that they believe them 
to be one and the same office. Whatever they were in 
Gildas's time, none need covet succession from them. 
Gildas expressly calls them — the ivhole priesthood — " chil- 
dren of the devil, who had merely the name of priests, hut 
whose office, mlely bought, never could benefit any ; whose 
blessing teas a curse ; and whose basely-bought ordination 
was a devilish delusion.^^^ But these are not the British 
bishops alluded to. The bishops intended in this question 
derived their ordination from Columba and his coadjutors. 
The most authentic history, and indeed almost the only 
authentic history, of these bishops, is found in Bede's 
Church History of those times. Bede was an English- 
man, and wrote about A.D. 731. The following is the 
statement he gives us about Columba and his coadjutors : — 
" Columba was the first preacher of Christ's faith to the 
Pictes, dwelling beyonde the greate mountaines northward, 
and the first founder of a monastery in the He Hu, which 
was had in great reverence and estimation a long time, 
both of the Scottes [that is, Irish] and of the Pictes. "f 
** Columban came to Britannic Avhen the most puissaunt 
King Bride, Meilocheus's sonne, reigned over the Red- 
shanks [Picts] in the ninth yere of his raigne, and did by 

* Gildas de Excidio Brit., pp. 72, &c. Lond., 1838. 

t Bede's Church History, b. V^ chap. 10, Dr. Stapleton's transla- 
tion, printed at St. Omers, 1622, 12mo. For proofs that the term 
Scots naeant the Irish, see Bishops Usher and Lloyd. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 239 

his learning and example of life coniiert that nation to the 
faith of Christ, in consideration whereof the aforesaide He 
was geuen him in possession to make a monasterie ; for 
the He is not greate, but as though it were fine families by 
estimation. His successours kepe it until this day, where 
also he lieth buried, dying at the age of 77 yeres, about 
thirty-two yeres after that he came into Britanny to preach. 
But before that he travailed to Britannie, he made a famous 
monasterie in Ireland, which for the great store of okes, 
is in the Scottish [Irish] tong called Dearmach ; that is to 
say, a filde of okes : of both which monasteries very many 
more religious houses were afterward erected by his scho- 
lars, both in Britannie, and also in Ireland, of all which, 
the same abbey that is in the He where in his bodie lieth 
buried, is the head house. This He is alwayes wont to 
haue an abbot that is a priest [presbyter] to be the ruler : 
to whom both the wholle countrey, and also the bishops 
themselves, ought, after a strannge and unaccustomed order, 
to he suhiect, according to the example of the first teacher, 
who was NO bishop, but a priest \^preshyter'\ and monke."* 
" The report is, that when King Oswald desired first to 
haue a prelate out of Scotland," (the province of the 
Scots or Irish,) " who might preach the faith to him and 
his people, an other man of a more austere stomacke was 
first sent : who, when after a litell while preaching to the 
English nacion, he did nothing prevaile, nor yet was wil- 
lingly heard of the people, he returned into his countrey, 
and in the assembly of the elders he made relacion, how 
that in his teaching he could do the people no good to 
whom he was sent, for as much as they were folks that 
could not be reclaymed, of a hard capacitie, and fierce of 
nature. Then the elders (as they say) began in cousaile 
to treate at large what were best to be done, being no lesse 
desyrous that the people should attayne the saluation which 
they sought for, then sory that the preacher whom they 
sent was not receiued. When Aidan (for he also loas 
present at the counsaile) replyed against the priest of 
whom I spake, saying, * Me thinkes, brother, that you 
haue bene more rigorous then reason would with that un- 
learned audience, and that you haue not, according to the 
apostle's instruction, first giuen them milke of milde doc- 

* Book iii, chap. 4. 



240 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

trine, vntill being by litle and litle nourished and weaned 
with the worde of God, they were able to vnderstand the 
more perfect misteries, and fulfill the greater commande- 
ments of God.' This being sayed, al that were at the 
assembly, looking vpon Aidan, pondered diligentlie his 
saying, and concluded that he aboue the rest was worthie 
of that charge and hishopricke^ and that he should be sent 
to instruct those vnlearned paynims : for he was founde 
to be chiefely adorned with the grace of discretion, the 
mother of all vertues. Thus making him bishop, they 
sent him forth to preach — rsic que ilium ordinantes ad prcB- 
dicandum miserunt .'^''^ 

Such is the account in Bede. From this the reader 
will observe, that the abbot in Columban's time was a 
presbyter, and no bishop ; that this presbyter was the ruler 
of the monastery ; that to this presbyter " the whole coun- 
try, and also the bishops themselves, ought, after a strange 
and unaccustomed order, to be subject^ Again, he will 
remark, that, in Aidan's being made bishop, the thing is 
done by a company of seniors, elders, or presbyters. 
This company sent another person as a prelate before 
Aidan, who had little or no success. He returned into 
the convent. His conduct becomes the subject of delibe- 
ration and debate ; and Aidan, one of the counsel, before 
he himself was bishop, reads him a lecture on his mis- 
management — a proof that he considered himself at least 
his equal in authority and jurisdiction. He addresses him 
also as a mere " priest" or presbyter — his office of bishop 
having expired, it seems, on his failing in the mission for 
which they had given it him. The other part of the elders, 
pleased with the piety and discretion of Aidan, immediately 
determine that he should be sent forth on this mission in- 
stead of the former, to instruct the ignorant and unlearned, 
" and THUS ordaining him, they sent him forth to preach — 
SIC que ilium ordinantes ad prcEdicandum miseruntT Now 
the inquiry is, who ordained and sent forth Aidan to 
preach ? ^' Who !" the unbiased reader will reply — " well, 
the company of seniors, elders, or presbyters, to be sure! 
for they are the persons, and they only, of whom Bede 
speaks in the passage." So we think the reply must ever 
be made by every unprejudiced reader of Bede. There is 

* Book iii, chap. 5. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 241 

not a syllable about any bishop or bishops being required, 
with some authority and power superlatively above these 
seniors, and without which it would have been sacrilege 
to ordain Aidan bishop. There is nothing in the history 
of these monasteries, abbots, and bishops, that supports 
such a supposition. The " council of seniors," with the 
abbot, who was a presbyter, made and sent forth these 
bishops. The abbot, " a presbyter and no bishop," ruled 
all these bishops when they were made. It is clear, then, 
that these bishops were all ordained and sent forth in their 
origin by presbyters. The stream cannot rise above its 
fountain ; their own orders were presby terian ; all the 
orders others derived from them must, therefore, be pres- 
byterian also. All these British bishops^ then, loere presby- 
terian, and all orders derived from them were presbyterian 
orders. There is one fact mentioned by Bede which 
strengthens this conclusion. At the consecration of a 
bishop, named Chadda, Bishop Wini was assisted by two 
British bishops. Bede says,* that, " besides this Wini, 
there was not any true bishop and rightly consecrated — • 
— canonice ordinatus — in all Britanny." This was about 
A. D. ^^^. Theodore was made archbishop of Canterbury 
about 668. This Theodore was very learned in canonical 
matters. In his visitations, the matter of Chadda's con- 
secration came under his notice, and he " reproved Chadda 
for that he was not rightly consecrated — and he did himself 
supplie and render complete his consecration after the right 
and due catholic manner — ordinationem ejus denub catholica 
ratione consummavif — he ordained him over again. Now 
why was this reordination, but because he considered there 
was something in the case of the two British bishops that, 
according to the canons, rendered their ordinations irregu- 
lar ? And what was this, but their deriving their ordination 
from presbyters ? And, canonically speaking, this was irre- 
gular. High Churchmen are welcome to this admission. 
But, then, the fact of these British bishops having, in their 
origin, presbyterian ordmation, seems undeniable. Bishop 
Lloyd ineffectually endeavoured to disprove this. 

These men of God had laboured twenty years, and with 
great success, before ever the monk Austin set foot in 
Britain. It is a mysterious providence that that ambitious, 

* Book iii, chap. 28. 
11 



242 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

persecuting, and corrupting church, (for such it even then 
was,) should have been allowed to oppress and scatter a 
church so much superior in gospel truth and holiness. 
Austin failed in argument and authority to overcome the 
British bishops and divines. He threatened their destruc- 
tion in a pretended prophecy, and, it is supposed on rather 
strong grounds, that he procured war to be made upon 
them, in which it is reported " that there were slain of 
them who came to pray, [presbyters,] about a thousand and 
two hundred men^ and only fifty escaped by flight."* Bishop 
Jewel, Archdeacon Mason, and others, show that it is pro- 
bable Austin was at the bottom of this horrible slaughter 
of these holy men and ministers of God's people. Dr. 
Hook, like many others, more inclined to the Popery and 
pageantry of Rome than to the apostolic simplicity and 
piety of the British bishops, misleads his readers in his 
representation of Austin's success. Archdeacon Mason 
has shown, by a careful and laborious deduction, that he 
" was not the apostle of this island, not of the Britons, not 
of the Scots, not of the Picts, not of the Angles, not of the 
Saxons, not of all the Jutes, hut of Kent alone r\ 

King James, I think it was, remarked that episcopacy 
was the religion of kings. Eome has long known this ; 
and that church therefore has been noted for " committing 
fornication loith the kiiigs of the earthP This was exem- 
plified in the period we are upon. The Romish bishops 
flattered the kings : the kings flattered the Romish bishops. 
They united, therefore, to drive away the simple, pious, 
and uncorrupted laborious British bishops. This they 
completely effected ; and the curse of Popery rested upon 
the country for many ages because of this sin. All the 
English bishops henceforward became Popish, and not a 
British bishop remained.'^ 

* Bede, book ii, chap. 2. 

t Vid. Masoni Vind. Eccl. Anglican., lib. iv, cap. 4, ed. 1638, Lond. 

t " It had been much better if the English had received Christianity 
from the Britains, if it had not been below conquerors to be taught by 
those whom they had subdued. For they would have delivered this 
religion to us, without making us slaves to the pope, whose creature 
Austin was ; and the British were aware of this, and therefore opposed 
him, and adhered to their old customs of Easter, and baptizing in a 
manner somewhat different from that of Rome, and they continued their 
former practice in the year 731, when Bede finished his history : but 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 243 

We shall not leave this without proof. For the strange 
confidence with which the inost unfounded statements are 
sometimes made, on the other side, makes it necessary to 
be almost tedious in authorities. I hope and believe such 
things are often done in ignorance. Many of these per- 
sons have so haughty an air in their statements, as to meri^ 
a severe rebuke for their insolent attempts at superiority 
on their baseless assumptions. Our proofs shall be taken 
from Bishop Godwin's Lives of the English Bishops. I 
use the edition of 1743, revised and corrected by Dr. 
Richardson, master of Emmanuel 'College, Cambridge, 
and canon of Lincoln Cathedral. 

We begin with the archbishops of Canterbury. Eccle- 
siastical rule and practice commonly connected the arch^ 
bishop with the ordinations of all the bishops in his pro- 
vince. The pope, as supreme and above all law, fre- 
quently interfered with this ; but this interference of the 
pope will not alter the case as to the purity of English 
ordinations. To make the matter as brief and clear as 
I can, I will throw it into the form of a table. It might 
be greatly enlarged ;" but the metropolitan sees, and a few 
others, will suffice. 



ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY. 

J jy Names of the Bishops Where and by whom Years of Pages in 

and Archbishops. ordained. Episcop. Godwin, 

668 Theodore Rome, Pope Vitalian 22 41 

735 Northelm Rome, Pope Gregory III 5 44 

763 Lambert Rome, Pope Paul 1 27 46 

891 Plegmund Rome, Pope Formosus (a) . . 26 48 

in a short time after, the Welsh as well as the English became entirely 
Romanists." — Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. i, p. 34, 4th 
edition, 1715. 

(a) " Every body knows the history of Pope Formosus. Stephen 
VI., his successor, at the head of his council, having declared the ordi- 
nations which he had administered void, caused all those to be reor= 
dained whom he had ordered. Sergius III. renewed all that Stephen 
had done against Formosus, and caused his ordinations to be declared 
null over again.' ^ — Courayer's Defence of the Ordinations in the Church 
of England, p. 259. Courayer was a learned Roman Catholic. His 
work is highly esteemed by the divines of the Church of England. 
Now Formosus ordained Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury. He 
was never reordained. He ordained most of the bishops in England 
for twenty-six years. What became of the succession here1 



244 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

j^ Names of the Bishops Where and by whom Years of Pages m 

and Archbishops. ordained. Episcop. Godwin. 

1020 xA^gelnoth Rome 17 55 

1138 Theobald London, Cardinal Albert, the 

pope's legate 22 69 

1174 Richard Anagni, Pope Alexander III. (Z*) 9 78 

1207 Stephen Langton Viterbo, Pope Innocent III. (c) 22 86 

1245 Boniface (d) Lyons, Pope Innocent IV. (e) 26 ^92 



{b) According to Onuphrius Panvinius, one of the pope's most de- 
voted biographers, the twenty-fourth schism in the popedom was be- 
tween Alexander III. and Victor IV. Alexander held his chaur by 
sedition, tear, and bloodshed. — See Platina in his Life. Where was 
the true succession 1 

(c) Pope Innocent III. deposed our King John, and put the kingdom 
under an interdict for six years. Upon his restoring the kingdom to 
John, by his legate, Pandulph, he placed, as a fine upon it, a yearly 
rent of eight thousand marks, and ordered that the kingdom should be 
held of the pope as a fee farm ! He made us a present of an arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. 

(d) See Bishop Godwin's account of this covetous wretch ; who 
says, that " he used all means, good or bad, to scrape money together, 
under the pretence of paying the debts of his predecessors ; but that 
he consumed the whole in war.'''' He threw" the whole diocess into a 
flame by his violent and base proceedings. 

(e) The reader will think, when he has read the following note, that 
Archbishop Boniface had received the spirit from the hand of his holi- 
ness. Pope Innocent IV., his ordainer, — not the Holy Spirit, but the 
spirit of mammon, the demon of unrighteousness . I take the account 
of Matthew Paris, as given by Archdeacon Mason, where much more 
to the same purpose is to be found. " The avarice of Rome had pro- 
ceeded to such a length, and had ascended so high, that Robert, the 
bishop of Lincoln, caused a computation to be made by his clergy of 
the revenues which foreign priests and prelates drew out of England ; 
and it was found, by true computation, that the present pope, viz., 
Innocent IV., had impoverished the universal church more than all his 
predecessors ; and that the annual revenues oi foreign clergymen, whom 
the Romish Church enriched out of England, amounted to more than 
seventy thousand marks. The king's revenue alone did not amount to 
a third part of that sum. 

" In the year 1253, Robert, bishop of Lincoln, wrote to this pope, 
in these words : — ' Your wisdom will know that I obey the mandates 
of the apostolical see with filial affection and devoted reverence ; and, 
with zeal for your paternal authority, I oppose and withstand all who 
oppose the mandates of the apostolical see. For the mandates of the 
apostolical see neither are nor can be any other than the doctrines of 
the apostles, and of our Lord Jesus Christ. The pope, in the hierarchy 
of the church, is the vicar of Christ. The holiness of the apostolical 
see cannot be opposed to him, (that is, to Christ.) The tenor, there- 
fore, of your letters is not agreeable to apostolical holiness, but altogether 
discordant thereto. First, because of many such letters, spread every- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 245 

4 »> Names of the Bishops Where and by whom Years of Pages in 

and Archbishops. ordained. Episcop. Godwin. 

1278 John Peckham Pope Nicholas III. (/) 13 ... 97 

1294 Robert Winchelsey Rome, Cardinal Sabinus 19 100 

1313 Walter Raynold .. Robert Winchelsey... 13 ... 103 
1327 Simon Mephain... Avignon, by order of Pope 

JohnXXII 5 ... 105 

1333 John Stratford Avignon, Cardinal Vitalis 15 ... 106 

1349 Thos. Bradwardine Avignon, Cardinal Bertrand . . 111 

1349 Simon Islip ... R. Stratford, bishop of London, 

who was consecrated by John 
Stratford, archbp. of Canter- 
bury, (iw/iom ^ee) 16 112 

1366 Simon Langham . . Simon Islip, as above 115 

1414 Henry Chichi ey... Sienna, Pope Gregory Xll. (^) 29 ... 125 

where, — a flood of inconstancy, audacity, impudent pretensions, and 
irreverence ; of lying, deceiving, 6fC., has broken i7i upon all. Besides, 
except the sin of Lucifer himself the son of perdition, none can be more 
detestable, abominable, and hateful to our Lord Jesus Christ, than by 

such BASE FRAUDS TO KILL AND DESTROY THE SOULS of OUr pastoral 

office and charge.' When these things came to the ears of the pope, 
unable to restrain his wrath and indignation, he, with a terrible counte- 
nance, and a haughty mien, exclaimed, ' Who is this old, crazed, blind 
fool, who dares, with such temerity, judge our actions 1 By Peter and 
Paul, were it not for our inbred generosity, I would hurl such con- 
fusion upon him, that his folly and punishment should astonish the 
world. What! is not the king of England our vassal'? Yea 
more, even our bond slave 1 And cannot we, by a sovereign nod, 
imprison him, and bind him in his ignominy V " Pages of this sort of 
abominations, practised by the popes in England, may be seen in Mason, 
lib. iv, cap. 14. He goes through the reigns of thirteen kings, with this 
evidence of the robbehies committed by the popes upon that kingdom. 
I leave the reader to his own judgment upon these apostolical successors. 

(/) Platina says, that Nicholas, to enrich his relations, robbed 
others. ^' He took away by violence the castles of certain noble Ro- 
mans, and gave them to his own relatives." This robber ordained 
Peckham, archbishop of Ca.nterbury. Bishop Godwin says, that " Peck- 
ham had hardly arrived in England, when the pope, his creator, (for so 
he was pleased to call him,) required a large sum of money from him, 
viz., four thousand marks. It will not be uninteresting to hear his 
answer. ' Behold I' says he, * thou hast created me, and forasmuch 
as it is natural for a creature to desire to be perfected by his creator^ 
so, in my distresses, I desire to be refreshed by your holiness. Truly 
a v^rrit of execution, horrible to be seen, and terrible to be heard, has 
lately reached me, declaring, that except I answer to it within a month 
after the feast of St. Michael, by paying into the hands of the merchants 
of Lucca the sum of four thousand marks, according to my bargain with 
the court of Rome, I am then to be excommunicated, and am to be cursed 
in my own and other principal churches, with bell, book, and candles." 
Admirable successors — of Simon Magus ! ! 

{g) The consecration of Chichley by the hands of Pope Gregory XIL 



246 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK. 

The custom was for the archbishops of Canterbury to 
consecrate the archbishops of York; but the popes, in 
the plenitude of their power, frequently overruled this 
regulation.* 

J J) Names of the Bishops Where and by whom Years of Pa^es in 

and Archbishops. ordained. Episcop. Godwin. 

1119 Thurstan Pope Calixtus 26 ... 668 

1 147 Henry Murdac Pope Eugenius 6 ... 670 

1154 Roger Theobald, abp. of Can- 
terbury, (i^Aom 5ee). 27 673 

1191 Geoffrey Plantagenet Tours, by the pope's order . . 22 ... 675 

1215 Walter Grey by Stephen Langton, 

{whom see) 40 ... 677 

1258 Godfrey deKmton.. Rome 6 ... 682 

1279 William Wick wane. Rome 6 ... 682 

1285 John Romanus Rome 10 ... 683 

1299 Thomas Corbridge.. Rome, Pope Boniface VIII. . 4 ... 684 

1305 Wm. de Greenfield . Lyons, Pope Clement V 10 ... 685 

1307 William de Melton.. Avignon 23 ... 685 

1342 William le Zouch . - Avignon, Pope Clement VI. 10 ... 686 

BISHOPS OF DURHAM. 

1133 Geoffrey Rufus York, Thurstan of York, 

(whom see) 12 , . . 734 

1153 Hugo Pusar Rome.. 42 ... 735 

1197 Philip of Poictiers.. Rome, Pope Celestine III 738 

1217 Richard de Marisco. Walter Grey, archbishop of 

York, {whom see) 9 ... 739 

is even put into Chichley's epitaph. Now this Gregory was one of the 
then THREE PRETENDERS to the popedom ; to end which schism the 
council of Constance was assembled. The history of these confusions 
has filled volumes. However, Gregory XII. was deposed, and John 
XXIII. or XXIV. kept the chair. Yet Chichley received his episcopal 
succession from this Gregory, declared by a whole council to be no pope 
of Rome, no bishop at all ; and he, Chichley, continued to commu- 
nicate these false orders to the English bishops and archbishops, even 
in the fifteenth century, for twenty-nine years ! W^hat an unbroken line 
of valid ordinations ! I 

These notes may suffice. They might be multiplied and enlarged 
greatly, but this is needless. The fountains are corrupt ; the streams 
cannot be pure. Either the popes or the archbishops of Canterbury 
consecrated the archbishops of York. These two archbishops conta- 
minated all the bishops of their distinct provinces. Never loas a sink 
of iniquity deeper than this I ! 

* Vide Howell's Pontificate, p. 288, &c., and Bishop Godwin, 
pp. 668, &c. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 247 

t j^ Names of the Bishops Where and by whom Years of Pages in 

and Archbishops. ordained. Episcop. Godwin. 

1249 Walter de Kirkham. Same as the above 10 ... 742 

1283 Anthony Beak Wickwane, archbp. of York, 

(ichomsee) 28 ... 743 

1311 Richard Kellow Greenfield, archbp. of York, 

{whom see) 5 745 

1318 Lewis Beaumont Rome 14 745 

1345 Thomas Hatfield... Rome 36 ... 749 

BISHOPS OF WINCHESTER. 

909 Frithstan Plegmund, abp. of Can- 

terbury, {whom see).. 23 

1070 Walkelin Pope's legate 27 ... 213 

1174 Richard Toclivius .. Richard, abp. of Cantev- 

huiy, {whom see) 15 216 

1205 PetrusdeRupibus.. Rome 34 ... 217 

1260 Ethelmar Rome, Pope Alexander IV. . 1 ... 220 

1262 John of Oxford Rome 3 ... 221 

1282 John dePontissara.. Rome 24 ... 222 

1323 John de Stratford... Avignon 10 ... 224 

Winchester and Durham are taken as specimens out 
of the provincial sees : it is needless to go further. Proof 
abundant is here given that the episcopal ordinations in the 
Church of England flow^ed steadily through all the filth 
of Popery. 

We have shown the sin of simony in the popedom in 
the last section. The old adage is, " The receiver is as 
bad as the thief.^^ The English bishops regularly traded 
with Rome in simoniacal traffic ; evidence enough of this 
is found in Bishop Godwin's Lives of the English Prelates. 
The court of Rome sold every thing. " Sometimes," says 
Godwin, " those who had purchased, were, by a fraudulent 
clause in a subsequent bull, thrown out of their purchase." 
It was then sold to a second huckster, and the pope re- 
ceived double. P. 106. John of Oxford, bishop of Win- 
chester, paid six thousand marks to the pope for his con- 
secration, and the same sum to Jordan, the pope's chan- 
cellor. P. 222. Greenfield, archbishop of York, was two 
years before he could obtain his confirmation and conse- 
cration from the pope, and then he paid nine thousand five 
hundred marks for the favour. P. 685. When Moreton 
became archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Godwin says, 
"he spunged from the bishops of the provinces a large 



248 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

amount of money, compelling them, by the authority of the 
pope, to bear the cost of his translation to that see — to the 
amount of fifteen thousand pounds. P. 131. 

" These, and other enormities, viz., all manner of avarice, 
usury, simony, and rapine ; all kinds of luxury, libidinous- 
ness, gluttony, and pride, reign in the court of Rome, — 

Ejus avariticc totus non sufficit orhis 
Ejus luxuries meretrix non sufficit omnisy* 

The incapacity of these lord bishops was often ludi- 
crous. When Beaumont was made bishop of Durham, 
Godwin says, " he was lame of both feet, and so illiterate 
that he could not read the documents of his consecration. 
The word metropoliticcB occurring, he hesitated, and being 
unable to pronounce it, he exclaimed, 'Let us skip it and go 
on^ " So also when he came to the term (Bnigmate, '' sticking 
in the mud again^"* says Godwin, " he burst out into these 
words, — ^ By Saint Lewis ! he luas very uncourteous who 
wrote that word there.'' ^^ His next successor but one in 
the same see was Thomas Hatfield. When the pope 
was reasoned with, that Hatfield was a young, trifling 
fellow, without either knowledge, gravity, or sincerity, he 
answered, — " If the king of England [who had requested 
the pope to consecrate this Hatfield] had asked me now 
to make an ass a bishop, I would not have refused him.''^ 
P. 750. 

That all bishops loere pledged to Popery before the Refor- 
mation will be evident from the account of the pall, and 
the bishop^ s oath of fidelity to the pope. Fox, the vener- 
able martyrologist, shall state this matter : " This pope, 
[Alexander HI.,] among many other his acts, had certain 
councils, some in France, some at Rome in Lateran, by 
whom it was decreed, that no archbishop should receive 
the pall, unless he should first swear. Concerning the 
solemnity of which pall, for the order and manner of giving 
and taking the same, loith obedience to the pope, as it is 
contained in their own words, I thought it good to set 
forth unto thee, that thou mayest well consider and under- 
stand their doings. 

" The form and manner, how and by what words the 

^ Archdeacon Mason's Vindic. Eccles. Anglican., p. 522. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 249 

pope is wont to give the pall unto the archbishop, in 
English : — 

" To the honour of Almighty God, and of blessed Mary, 
the virgin, and of blessed Peter and Paul, and of our lord 
POPE N. and of the holy Church of Rome, and also of the 
church N., committed to your charge, we give to you the pall, 
taken from the body of St, Peter, as a fulness of the office 
pontifical^ which you may wear within your own church 
upon certain days, which be expressed in the privileges of 
the said church, granted by the see apostolic. 

" In like manner proceedeth the oath of every bishop, 
swearing obedience to the pope, in like words as folio weth, in 
English : — 

" I, N., bishop of N., from this hour henceforth, will be 
faithful and obedient to blessed St. Peter, and to the holy 
apostolic Church of Rome, and to my lord N, the pope, I 
shall be in no council, nor help either with my consent or 
deed, whereby either of them^ or any member of them may 
be impaired, or whereby they may be taken with any evil 
taking. The council which they shall commit to me either 
by themselves, or by messengers, or by their letters, wit- 
tingly or willingly, I shall utter to none to their hindrance. 
To the retaining and maintaining the Papacy of Rome, and 
the regalities of St. Peter, I shall be aider (so mine order 
be saved) against all persons, &c. So God help me and 
these holy gospels of God.^^^ 

The learned Mr. Johnson, who was proctor for the clergy 
of the diocess of Canterbury, says, that " both the arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and he of York, from the time of 
Austin and Paulinus, down to the reign of Henry VIII., 
(saving that eight of this province [For A] had it not, viz., 
those between Paulinus and Egbert,) received a pall from 
Rome, for which they paid an unreasonable sum. This 
pall was a supernumeral robe of lambs'^ icool, curiously 
adorned, and worn by the archbishop when he celebrated : 
it is still the arms or device of the archbishopric of Canter- 
bury. It was pretended to be an ensign of archiepiscopal 
authority, but was in reality a badge of slavery to the see 
of Rome.^^f And will the metropolitan of all England con- 

* Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. i, p. 259, fol. edition. Lon., 1684. 
t Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. i, p. 41, fourth edition, 
1715. 

11* 



250 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

tinue to bear, in the most distinguished place and manner, — = 

" in REALITY A BADGE of SLAVERY tO the SEE of RoME ?" 

Let the Church of England put such things away. They 
are discreditable and injurious to the cause of Protestant- 
ism in geneal. 

Here, then, is sufficient evidence of the point that the 
episcopal ordinations in the Church of England, before the 
Reformation, came through the ''series of monster s,^^ — the 
popes of Rome. Evidence also has been given that the 
bishops, generally, were as corrupt as the popes. " All 
ecclesiastical degrees, even from the pope to the doorkeep- 
ers, were oppressed with damnable simony." St. Bernard 
says that ambitious, covetous, sacrilegious, simoniacal, 
incestuous persons, fornicators, and such like monsters of 
mankind, flowed from all parts of the world to Rome, that 
by the apostolical authority they either might obtain or 
keep ecclesiastical honours." Such were the ordainers 
and the ordained ! Blessed channels ! through whom 
alone the power and authority to preach a holy gospel is to 
be communicated for the salvation of the world ! 



SECTION XIII. 

NULLITY OF POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS 

CONCLUDED. ^ 

Having in the preceding sections exhibited a brief view 
of the ordainers of the English bishops before the Reforma- 
tion, and of the persons who were ordained by them, our 
way is now clear for the more immediate discussion of 
these Popish ordinations. Three questions require our 
consideration here : first, what is ordination ? secondly, 
what are the Scriptural regulations on the subject, as to 
the ordainers and the persons to be ordained ? and thirdly, 
what, according to these rules, is the validity of these 
Popish ordinations ? 

First, what is ordination ? Ordination is that act of the 
church by which persons are solemnly set apart to the 
ministry of the gospel. It is usually performed by laying 
on the hands of the ministers already existing in that church. 



I 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 251 

Apostolical usage countenances this form ; but no particu- 
lar form was ever made necessary. The priests under the 
law had no imposition of hands in their ordination : the 
apostles had no imposition of hands in their ordination : it 
is never commanded. It is decent and proper, but not 
essential; not necessary to ordination. Some persons 
will assert the contrary, and maintain that imposition of 
hands is essential to ordination. The reader, who will 
receive assertions for proof, will believe them : sufficient 
Scriptural proofs they have not ; and human authority can 
enjoin nothing as essential in divine matters, such as the 
ministry of the gospel. To make this more clear, we may 
remark, that all the great writers on the subject generally 
grant that there is no command in the word of God enjoin- 
ing either any particular matter or form of ordination : that 
is, in plainer language, no particular action, sign, or form 
of words, is enjoined as necessary to ordination : imposi- 
tion of hands, consequently, is not enjoined, and therefore 
is not necessary. If we come to custom, it may be ob- 
served, that the Jewish sanhedrim, from which it is sup- 
posed that the Christian church took many of its ordination 
ceremonies, that this sanhedrim admitted, fo^j^a long period, 
ordinations to be performed without imposition of hands. 
It was frequently done by a written document, to absent 
persons, simply declaring them ordained ; in the same man- 
ner as one of the ministers of the sovereign would appoint 
a lieutenant to a county.^ i\.s to the opinions of Christian 
writers on the subject, they did not, for above a thousand 
years after the apostles' time, define what they considered 
necessary to ordination. When they began to attempt 
this, some fixed upon one thing, and some upon another, in 
endless confusion. Those who at last came to place im- 
position of hands among the essentials, did it upon no other 
ground than this, that the church had willed it to be so by 
its usage. They grant that the church might have used it 
or not used it, without violating any divine authority. The 
argument, then, is based on false premises, as it assumes 
that the church can add to the essentials of religion. The 
conclusion, of course, falls to the ground. And the po- 
sition remains immovable, that, as there is no command in 
the word of God enjoining any particular action, sign, or 

* See Seldx:)n, d© Syn., b. ii, c. 7, sec. 1 



252 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

form of words, as necessary to ordination ; therefore, no 
particular action, sign, or form of words, is necessary to 
ordination ; consequently, imposition of hands is not neces- 
sary to ordination. We may simply remark, in conclu- 
sion, that the words used by the Church of Rome and the 
Church of England, — -" Receive thou the Holy Ghost, 
(fee," were not used by the Christian church for above a 
thousand years after Christ.* 

Secondly, what are the Scriptural regulations on the 
subject of ordinations, as to the ordainers, and the persons 
to be ordained. From the nature of the case, the qualifi- 
cations are generally the same as to both parties. The 
reader is requested carefully to hear in mind that part of 
section fourth, extending from page 71 to page 80. From this 
he will see that holiness of life, the call of God, and sound- 
ness in the faith, are required in a minister by our Lord 
and his apostles. The special command given by St. Paul 
to Timothy, as to the ordainers, is as follows : " The 
things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, 
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to 
teach others," 2 Tim. ii, 2. This cannot reasonably be 
interpreted to mean less than these two things : first, that 
the man is a true believer, a true Christian ; and secondly, 
that he must give suitable evidence that he will he faithful 
to the truth and trust of the gospel, as a steward of its 
mysteries : less than this would not answer the divine 
requisition. Calvin remarks, with his accustomed good 
sense, that the apostle requires them to be ''faithful men, 
not according to that faith which is common to Christians 
in general, but that by way of emphasis they should spe- 
cially excel in faith." This is corroborated by the qualifi- 
cation for deacons ; even they were to be " men of honest 
report, full of the Holy Ghost and of loisdom,^^ Acts vi, 3. 

Then, as to the persons to be ordained : the reader 
should keep in mind what has been said in section fourth, as 
above referred to ; especially what is laid down by divine 
authority on the subject in 1 Tim. iii, 1-7, and Titus i, 5-9 : 

* See on the points above stated, Morinus de Ordinationibus ; Ca- 
bassutii Not. Eccles., p. 178 ; Altare Damascenum, p. 174, edit. 1708 ; 
Stillingfleet's Irenicum, pp. 270 and 392 ; Masoni de Ministerio Angli- 
cano, pp. 216, &.c. ; and Courayer on English Ordinations, chap, x, pp. 
161 and 197, edit. Lond., 1725. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 253 

" This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a 
bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be 
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good 
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to 
wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, 
not a brawler, not covetous ; one that ruleth well his 
own house, having his children in subjection with all 
gravity ; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, 
how shall he take care of the church of God ?) not a no- 
vice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the con- 
demnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good 
report of them which are without ; lest he fall into re- 
proach and the snare of the devil." " For this cause left 
I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had 
appointed thee : if any be blameless, the husband of one 
wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. 
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God ; 
not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no 
striker, not given to filthy lucre ; but a lover of hospitality ; 
a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate ; holding 
fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may 
be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince 
the gainsayers." Here, personal piety ; an unhlameahle life; 
knowledge of the gospel^ ability to teach, &c., are strictly 
required. One point deserves especial notice here, as 
great mistakes arise from overlooking it, viz., the call of 
God, as PRECEDING all human appointment to the office of 
the ministry. This call is stated and proved at page 73. 
Archbishop Potter, a high authority on the subject, main- 
tains "- that the whole power of erecting the Christian 
church, and of governing it since it was erected, is derived 
from [God] the Father. But then the person by whom this 
power is immediately conferred is the Holy Spirit. And 
the authority and special grace, whereby the apostles, and 
all church officers execute their respective functions, are in 
the same manner ascribed to the Spirit. So that all eccle- 
siastical authority, and the graces whereby men are ena- 
bled to exercise this authority to the benefit of the church, 
are the gifts of the Holy Spirit"* So Bishop Wilson : 

* Archbishop Potter on Church Government, pp. 254-256, edit. 
Ba^ster. Lond., 1838 



254 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

" As we consult God, as Jesus Christ himself did, when we 
ordain men to his service, so should we consult Jesus Christ 
when we assign them a place in his family. Would Jesus 
Christ have given this man the charge of the souls of this 
parish ? That we may have the comfort of knowing that we 
enter into the ministry by a choice which proceeded from 
God, we must have some assurance in our own hearts, that 
the glory of God, the good of souls, was in our intention and 
that we were called regularly, and according to the inten- 
tion of the church. It belongs to thee, O Holy Spirit of 
grace, to send such guides into thy church as may lea4 
thy people in the right way, and to be the guide of those 
guides."* And Peter Damian, cardinal, bishop of Ostia, 
who assisted the popes in the eleventh century to settle the 
question of disputed ordinations, grants fully, that " all that 
is great and holy in ordination is by the receiving of the 
Holi/ Spirit ; so that their ordination is to be ascribed to 
God and not to man ; and that the priests, on their ordina- 
tion, do, as it were, become clothed loith the righteousness 
ofGod.^^j From these statements, and from what has been 
above referred to, it clearly follows, that, as the call of God 
must precede the human appointment, and be the basis 
upon which it rests, any human appointment which super- 
sedes, contradicts, or sets aside, this divine call, is null and 
void to all intents and purposes. God'' s call can never con- 
tradict his own requisitions. He who requires in his writ- 
ten word, as qualifications for this office, that the candi- 
dates for it should be ''just and holy^'' would never, by 
the Holy Ghost, call a wicked and unholy man : he who 
requires, by his written word, a man to be " blameless^'' 
would never call a man by the Holy Ghost who had no- 
thing but what wdiS full of blame: he who requires by his 
written word that a man be " sober and temperate,^^ would 
never call a man by the Holy Ghost who was a drunkard: 
he who by his written word requires a man not to be given 
to '^filthy lucre, ^^ would never by the Holy Ghost call a 
simonist, a trader in holy things : he who by his written 
word requires a man " to hold fast the faithful word^^ 
would never by the Holy Ghost call a heretic to this minis- 
try. No ^(;^c^ec^7^^e7^, therefore, no drunkards, TiO simonists^ 

*' Bishop Wilson's Meditations in the Oxford Tracts, No. 65. 
t Damiani de Eccles. Inst., cap. 3, edit, 1536, iSnio. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 255 

no heretics, as such, ever had the call of God. But the 
greatest part of the ordainers and the ordained before the 
Reformation were wicked, drunkards, simonists, heretics, 
&c. ; see section xi and xii. God never sent them. " The 
blind led the blind, and both fell into the ditch." For 
any human authority, knowingly to put such men into the 
ministry, is to break God's ordinances, to introduce wolves 
instead of shepherds into the fold of Christ, and to increase 
the condemnation of the men so obtruded upon the church. 
He who ordains a wicked man to the ministry is a traitor 
to God and the church. Such is the view we derive 
from this supreme authority. If men speak according to 
these oracles, let us hear them; but, if otherwise, they are of 
no authority. Let God be true, though every man be a liar. 
Our English reformers have some fine remarks on this 
subject. In the declaration made of the functions and 
divine institution of bishops and priests by the convocation, 
as noticed above, they say, '' This office, &c., is subject, 
determined, and restrained unto those certain limits and 
ends for the which the same was appointed by God's or- 
dinance; which, as was said before, is only to adminis- 
ter and distribute unto the members of Christ's mystical 
body, spiritual and everlasting things: that is to say, the 
pure and heavenly doctrine of Christ's gospel, and the 
graces conferred in his sacraments. And therefore this 
said power and administration is called, in some places of 
Scripture, donum et gracia, a gift and grace ; in some 
places it is called claves sive potestas clavium, that is to 
say, the keys, or the power of the keys ; whereby is sig- 
nified a certain limited office, restrained unto the execution 
of a special function or ministration, according to the say- 
ing of St. Paul in the first chapter of his Epistle to the 
Romans, and in the fourth chapter of his First Epistle to 
Timothy, and also in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to 
the Ephesians." After a lengthened comment on the last 
reference, they conclude thus : " By which words it ap- 
peareth evidently, not only that St. Paul accounted and 
numbered this said power and office of the pastors and 
doctors among the proper and special gifts o{ the Holy Ghost, 
but also it appeareth that the same was a limited power 
and office, ordained especially and only for the causes and 
purposes before rehearsed," Thesi^ are golden sentences. 



256 OK APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

The office, power, and authority of bishops and presbyters 
" is subject, determined, and restrained unto those certain 
limits and ends for the which the same was appointed by 
God^s ordinance.''^ From these premises it follows, — 

First, that it is limited to spiritual matters ; ministers 
of the gospel have no authority over the body and sub- 
stance of the people, either directly or indirectly : 

Secondly, that it is limited to the edification of the 
church, to the building up of God's people in their most 
holy faith ; as soon, then, as ever any one begins to subvert 
the faith of the church, his office loses its authority : 

Thirdly, that all bishops and presbyters are limited in 
their ordinations, not only to such qualifications of the 
candidates as *' God^s ordinance'^ requires, but also they 
are limited by God's ordinance in the power and authority 
they give to those whom they ordain ; that is, they cannot 
give either more or less than is " determined hy God^s ordi- 
nance.^^ 

From overlooking this last point, a silly argument has 
been attempted by many writers on episcopacy, in order 
to prove that though presbyters in the apostles' time might 
have the power of ordination, yet if, when modern bishops 
ordained any presbyters, they did not choose to give these 
presbyters authority to ordain, that then these presbyters 
have no divine authority to ordain. This is saying not 
that " God's ordinance," but that the bishops' dicta deter- 
mines the limits of the gospel ministry. A delighful doc- 
trine to high Churchmen ! but a doctrine which is the very 
essence of Popery itself That any particular church may 
make prudential arrangements on the subject of ordination 
as a rule for its own ministers, is readily granted ; but 
this is a mere human affair, and never can in the least 
affect in the sight of God the authority of any true minis- 
ter of Christ in the church of God. Presbyters in the 
apostles' time were the same as bishops : Timothy was 
ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 
Presbyters, then, had divine authority to ordain In the 
apostles' times — God never took it away — no power on 
earth can take it away. Presbyters, therefore, always had, 
and always will have, a divine right to ordain. Such are 
the divine limitations of the ministry — to spiritual things 
only ; to edification and not to subversion of the faith ; to 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 257 

the qualifications of the persons, and to the restraining and 
fixing of the ministerial power and authority. Let these 
rules be observed, and a universal reformation must be the 
consequence ; but if the traditions of men are preferred to 
the commandments of God, men so sent will preach in 
vain : God never sent them. He wall not forsake his faith- 
ful people ; but such men shall not profit them. This is 
substantially the meaning of the twenty-sixth article in the 
Church of England. It gives too much authority to such 
men ; but its principal design is to show that the effect of 
Christ's ordinance is not taken away by their wickedness — 
" from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacra- 
ments ;" that is, that the true Shepherd will not forsake his 
flock because wolves happen to be over them. Very true : 
but this will not prove that a wolf is either a sheep or a 
shepherd. Wo to the men who on such a principle place 
wolves over the flock of Christ ! 

The desire to maintain an external unity led to an early 
corruption in this matter. For the supposed honour of the 
church, and to prevent divisions, as the fathers state, or- 
dination was very generally given up into the hands of the 
bishops. Many of them became tyrannical, proud, wicked, 
and worldly. And what made the case worse still, was 
this, that during the fourth century the greatest part of 
them became Arians, denying the true Gpdhead of Christ, 
and the personality and divinity of the Holy Ghost. 'Now 
what was to be done, when those who maintained the 
orthodox faith began again to prevail? They must either 
deny that heretics, as the Arians were, could give true or- 
ders, and consequently altogether reject the Aiian bishops, 
and their ordinations ; or they must receive their orders as 
valid and Christian. Well, to patch up the matter, and 
save the honour of the bishops, they generally received the 
ordinations of the Arians, And it is probable that nearly 
all the episcopal ordinations in the world have come from 
Arians. A glorious succession ! Then followed the 
attempt to find reasons, and make decrees, to justify such 
UNscRiPTURAL and ABSURD proceedings. For what can be 
more unscriptural and absurd than to pretend that a man, 
who refuses to receive Jesus Christ, by refusing to *' ho- 
nour the Son even as he honours the Father V^ John v, 23 
— that such a man, I say, can have a commission from 



258 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Christ, to ORDAIN others to deny him also ? To pretend 
to salve this by saying, that if he uses the name of the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, and. does this by the authority 
of the church, his acts are valid, is a sophism. The 
authority of the church is limited by the Scriptures — by 
the authority of God : the church, therefore, can give no 
authority contrary to the Scriptures ; but the Scriptures 
*' reject all heretics ;" — all that " deny the Lord that bought 
them," 2 Pet. ii, 1 ; — therefore the church can give such 
heretics no authority : see section fourth. The words, Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, are either used according to 
Scripture truth, or they are not. If an Arian should use 
them, according to Scripture (an impossible supposition) 
he comes to God with a lie in his mouth ; that is, he pro- 
nounces as true what he believes to be false, and this 
he does with the intention of deceiving both God and man. 
To suppose Christ would set his seal to this lie, would be 
blasphemy. An Arian, therefore, cannot use them in a 
true sense. Suppose, then, that he uses them in a pervert- 
ed sense, — did Christ ever give him a commission to pervert 
his truth, and to appoint others to pervert it ? This again 
is blasphemous and absurd. An Arian, therefore, has no 
commission ; he can give none. All he does is null and 
void to all intents and purposes. A righteous division is 
better than a sinful unity. The orthodox should have act- 
ed on this principle. However, too much wickedness in 
life had at that time spread over those parts which held the 
orthodox viejw of the Trinity, so that there was not moral 
couraore enouo^h to resist and counteract these abominations. 
Heresy is destructive ; and faith, without works, is dead. 
Nothing but a living, fruitful faith, can conquer the world. 

Simony is a point to be well considered here. Though 
this was an early evil, yet as it never could be embraced 
by any part of the church as a mark of a sect or division 
in the church, so no evil schemes to defend it were laboured 
out by perverted ingenuity. It has always been condemn- 
ed by decisions of councils, as the foulest of sins ; as the 
following extracts will show : — 

" If any bishop, priest, or deacon, obtain his dignity by 
money, let him, and him who ordained him, be deposed, 
and wholly cut off from communion, as Simon Magus 
was by Peter." — Apostolical Canons, No. 22. I am aware 



ON APOSTOLICxVL SUCCESSION. 259 

of the dispute about the authority of these canons. I be- 
lieve them to be of no apostolical authority. However, it 
is generally acknowledged that they give us the views and 
practice of the church, in fact, at a very early age. They 
were, in the fourth and following centuries, referred to as 
ecclesiastical authority. They are in great estimation 
with high Churchmen. Mr. Johnson, the learned transla- 
tor of the canons, a strong succession advocate, remarks 
in his notes on this canon: — "Indeed, in the case oi simony, 
it may be said, that he who obtained orders by this means, 
his orders were null ah initio,^'' — -from the beginning. He 
never had any really. 

*' If any bishop or. lain for money, and make a market of 
the un vendible grr^ce. and perform the ordination of a bish- 
op, village-bishop, priest, deacon, or of any one listed in the 
clergy, for gain, &c., let him that is ordained be never the 
better for his ordination." — Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 
451, can. 2. There were present six hundred bishops. 

" That they who are ordained for money, be deposed, 
and the bishop who ordained them." — Council of Constanti- 
nople, or Trullus, A. D. 683, canon 22. 

" Whosoever either sell or buy holy orders cannot be 
priests; hence it is written, * Cursed be he that gives and 
he that receives.' How, therefore, if they be accursed, 
and are not holy, can they consecrate others ? How can 
he bless, who is accursed himself? There is no power in 
ordination, where buying and selling prevaiL" — Canon 
Law, by Gratian, in the twelfth century. 

'^ If any one should be enthroned in Peter's chair by 
MONEY, by human favour, by popular or military tumult, 
without the united and canonical election of the cardinals, 
such a one is not apostolical, but is an apostate ; and 
the cardinals, clergy, and people of God, may anathema- 
tize him as a thief and a robber, and may, by all human 
means, drive him from the apostolical seatP — Second 
Council of Lateran, Yid. Platin. in Yita. Nicolai. tertii. 

" Whatever holy orders are obtained by money, either 
given or promised to be given, w^e declare that they were 
NULL from the beginning, and never had any validity^ 
— Council of Placentina, A. D. 1095, can. 2. 

In the fortieth canon of the Church of England, simony, 
the buying and selling of orders, &c., is declared to be 



260 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

" a detestable sin, and execrable before God." And every 
bishop, priest, &c., before he is admitted to any spiritual 
office, is obliged to take the following oath: — "I, N. N., 
do swear that I have made no simoniacal payment, con- 
tract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself or by 
any other, to my knowledge or with my consent, to any 
person or persons whatsoever, for or concerning the pro- 
curing and obtaining of this ecclesiastical office, &c. So 
help me, God, through Jesus Christ." 

Here, then, we have seen what qualifies a person for 
ordination ; and what disqualifies him. Heaven has laid 
down the law. The authority of the church is limited 
by the authority of God. Every person c^rz^/y ordained, 
must be ordained according to the word of God ; and must 
be ordained specially and only for the causes and purposes 
therein contained. Every ordination which is plainly and 
knowingly contrary to this rule, is null and void from be- 
ginning to end. But the ordination of every man who is 
plainly not a " faithful man ;" that is, a true Christian, 
the ordination of every wicked man, of every heretic, 
and of every simonist, is flatly contrary to the word of 
God ; therefore the ordination of every wicked man, of 
every heretic, of every simonist, is null and void from the 
beginning, it is no ordination at all. 

Let us apply this divine rule to the Popish ordinations 
of English bishops, before and at the Reformation. The 
Church of Rome, by the united judgment of the reformers, 
was the " great whore" mentioned in the Revelation. 
Can this " great whore" have legitimate children ? Com- 
mon sense, as well as the Scriptures, would declare — No ! 
The Church of Rome is an idolatrous church ; can she, as 
such, have a heavenly commissioned priesthood ? — Impossi- 
ble ! The popes, bishops of Rome y who ordained the Eng- 
lish bishops, were monsters in crime, heretics and simon- 
ists of the darkest dye. They could have no commission 
from a holy God : they were " sons of Belial," " antichrist ;" 
they, therefore, could give no commission. 

The English bishops, generally, before the Reformation, 
were true sons of the " great whore." They bought and 
sold, and trajficked in spiritual thiiigs ; they were wicked 
men, idolaters and simonists. Any ordination of such men 
would be null from the beginning ; would be nothing :— 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 261 

more, if possible, when they were ordained by those mon- 
sters of iniquity, the popes of Rome. The conclusion, 
then, is irresistible — Popish ordinations of the English 
BISHOPS BEFORE and AT the Reformation were null and 

void to ALL intents AND PURPOSES ! !* ' 

* Two objections are sometimes urged against this conclusion ; first, 
— that though one bishop who ordains might be vicious, a simonist, a 
heretic, &c., yet the others concerned in the ordination might not be so : 
and, secondly, it is urged that Judas continued to possess full apostoli- 
cal authority notwithstanding his being a thief, a devil, and a traitor ; 
and that, therefore, a bishop retains full episcopal authority, however 
wicked he may be. Let us examine these objections. 

Objection 1st. — That though one bishop who ordains might be vicious, 
a simonist, a heretic, &c., yet the others concerned in the ordination 
might not be so. This, I believe, is as the matter is usually stated. But 
the true state of the question is different. We will state it on their own 
principles; viz., on ecclesiastical authority — Scriptural authority it has 
none. In the ordination of a bishop there is always one bishop who alone 
consecrates ; this is the universal language of the rituals on the subject : 
the other bishops who take part in the ceremony are rather there as wit- 
nesses than as consecrators. The ancient rituals never speak of more than 
one consecrator. In all the ancient Greek forms of ordination, as exhi- 
bited by Morinus, one bishop only lays his hand on the head of the person 
to be ordained, the other bishops touching the Gospels placed upon the 
head of the person to be ordained. In the Roman Church the other 
bishops touched his head, but did not lay their hands on his head. One 
bishop only pronounced the consecration prayer. This was, in ninety- 
nine cases out of a hundred, either the pope or the archbishop : see 
Morinus, part ii, pages 234 and 250. The consecration of bishops, 
therefore, always depended upon the capability of the one bishop who 
consecrated ; and whenever he was found to be really incompetent, the 
general rule was to quash all his ordinations. The monsters of iniquity, 
the popes, as exhibited in the preceding pages, were the sole consecra- 
tors of the English bishops, as stated in section xii. By Scriptural 
rule they were utterly incompetent : their ordinations were consequently 
NULL. The rule just stated makes it difficult to prove the validity of 
Archbishop Parker's consecration ; upon which all the present ordina- 
tions and consecrations of the English Church since the Reformation 
depend. Barlow v/as his only consecrator ; but there is not full proof 
that Barlow himself was consecrated. The acts of the consecration of 
bishops are generally registered in the archives of the archbishop, but 
no registration of Barlow's consecration can be found. 

Objection 2d. — It is urged that Judas continued to possess full apos- 
tolical authority, notwithstanding his being a thief, a devil, and a 
traitor ; and that therefore a bishop retains full episcopal authority, 
however wicked he may be. We answer,^ — 

First, there is no proof that Judas was a wicked man ^\iQX\ first put 
into his office. 

Secondly, it i§ acknowledged by Churchmen of considerable note, 



262 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

This was the general opinion of the Protestant 
churches at the Reformation ; and even before that time 
the same opinion was maintained by the Waldenses. In 
the Treatise of Antichrist, by the old Waldenses, written 
A. D. 1200, having described antichrist, they go on — 
" that iniquity that is after this manner, with all the minis' 
ters thereof, great and small, with all those that follov/ 

(v. Archbishop Potter on Church Government, pp. 35, 38, 51 and 52, ed. 
Bagster, 1838,) that the office of the apostles, before our Lord's resurrec- 
tion, was a very limited one. They performed no ordinations, exercised 
no superintendence over any societies, had no authority lohaiever over a 
single human being. When their commission was more fully given, 
they were to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from on high. 
This was given on the day of Pentecost. 

Thirdl}'-, limited as this commission was in Judas's time, there is no 
proof that he performed a single act, as om apostle, or had any counte- 
nance from our Lord to do so, after he had become a thief, a devil, and a 
traitor. It was only six days before that passover at which our Lord 
suffered, that Judas is first charged with any of these crimes. It was 
certainly after even this time that the devil is said to have entered into 
Judas : his treason followed this. There is no proof, therefore, that he 
was continued in the authority of an apostle for a single day after any 
of these crimes. 

Fourthly, it is said expressly that ^^ Judas by transgression fell 
from his apostleship,^^ Acts i, 25. " And none of them is lost but the 
son of perdition," John xvii, 12. Judas is here spoken of as already 
*' lost,^^ and as being the " son of perdition.''^ He was lost from Jesus, 
and consequently lost from his apostleship, before he hanged himself. 

The conclusion is, that there is no proof that Judas was continued a 
single day in his apostleship, or that he was allowed to perform a single 
act, as an apostle, after his transgression ; but, on the contrary, it is 
positively asserted in the word of God, that " by transgression he fell 
from it." No bishop, then, has an iota of authority from this case after 
he becomes a wicked man ; but it distinctly and positively proves that, 
as a wicked man, " by transgression he falls from his office.''^ So fall 
for ever all such schemes, in lohich bigoted, infatuated men, would hide 
their intolerance and abominations ! 

Some readers may wonder why I have taken the pains to expose this 
last monstrous effort to make Judas, as the Rev. Charles RadclifFe 
humourously said, " a hook on which to haiig the apostolical succes- 
sion." I can tell them. In my simplicity, I supposed such a thing too 
monstrous to be attempted : but I find I have been mistaken. Even 
evangelical clergymen, I have been told on good authority, have had 
the hardihood and infatuation to use it in the pulpit. But what crowns 
all, is, that the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, B. C. L., chaplain in 
ordinary to the queen, in an Answer which he has written to this Essay, 
by the request of Dr. Hook, &c., and dedicated, by permission, to the 
archbishop of Canterbury, has placed this case of Judas among his argu- 
ments! ! See p. 85 of his ^'Apology for the Apostolical Succession." 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 263 

them with a wicked heart, and hoodwinked eyes ; this 
congregation, thus taken all together, is called antichrist, 
or Babylon, >)r the fourth beast, or the whore, or the man 
of sin, or the son of perdition. His ministers are called 
false prophets, lying teachers, the ministers of darkness, 
&c. Antichrist covers his iniquity by the length or suc- 
cession of time, — by the spiritual authority of the apostles, 
— by the writings of the ancients, and by councils. These 
and many other things are, as it were, a cloak and a gar- 
ment, wherewith antichrist doth cover his lying wickedness, 
that he may not be rejected as a pagan, (or infidel,) and 
under which he can go on to act his villanies like a whore. 
Now it is evident, as well in the Old as in the New Tes- 
tament, that a Christian stands bound, by express commana 
given, to separate himself from antichristP Then a 
great many passages of Scripture are quoted to prove this 
duty of separating from antichrist. On this ground it was 
also that they rehaptizecl those who had been baptized by 
the Popish bishops and priests, accounting them sacrile- 
gious and antichristian ministers, and incapable of admin- 
istering any sacraments. See Schlosser's note to his Latin 
version of Wall on Infant Baptism.* 

Calvin was consulted to know what should be done 
when any bishop, curate, &c., from among the Papists, 
should desire to join himself to the reformed church ? He 
remarks, " first, that if he should be found not to have suf- 
ficient ability and qualification for the oflice of a minister, 
he should show the sincerity of his conversion by retiring 
into the station of a private member of the church. But 
if he should be found able to continue in the ministry, he 
was to give in a confession of his faith, and of his sincere 
and sacred adherence to the reformed religion. Then he 
was to acknowledge that his vocation or call to the min- 
istry had been a mere abuse : he was to request a new 
approbation ; he was exjjressly and by name to profess that 
his former institution by the authority of the pope had 
been of no validity ; and at the same time he was to 
renounce it as being conferred by means every way un- 
lawful and opposed to the order which the Lord Jesus 
Christ established in the church. After this, he was to 
join himself to the company of the other reformed ministers, 

* Vol. ii, p. 166, 4to. Hamburgi, 1753. 



264 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and be subject to the discipline and government established 
in that place where they are. It is certain and clear that 
none can be accounted Christian ministers, except they 
first RENOUNCE the priesthood of Popery, to which they 
had been promoted to make and offer Christ as a sacrifice 
in the mass ; which is a kind of blasphemy to be detested 
by all possible means. These things being done, it will 
be the duty of such bishops to give diligence that all the 
churches that pertain to their diocess be purged from 
errors, idolatry, &c."* 

Here this great reformer, whose views were generally 
received almost like laws in a large portion of the reformed 
church, throws Popish ordinations to the ivinds. How 
abundantly this letter proves the misrepresentations of such 
men as Dr. Hook, who would fain persuade us that where 
episcopacy was not retained, " the reformers' pleaded not 
princijjle, but necessity." Even Bishop Taylor grants 
the contrary. " M. Du Plessis," says he, ^' a man of honour 
and great learning, does attest, that at the first Reformation 
there were many archbishops and cardinals in Germany, 
England, France, and Italy, that joined in the Reformation, 
whom they," the reformed churches, " might, but did not, 
employ in their ordinations. And what necessity can be 
pretended in this case, I would fain learn, that I might 
make their defence. But, which is of more and deeper 
consideration, for this might have been done by inconsi- 
deration and irresolution, as often happens in the beginning 
of great changes ; but it is their constant and resolved prac- 
tice, at least in France, that if any returns to them, they 
will reordain him by their presbytery, though he had 
before episcopal ordination, as both their friends and 
their enemies bear witness."! Here then is evidence 
from that illustrious champion of Protestantism, Du Pies- 
sis, and from the French church in general, that it was 
the constant and resolved practice to reject Popish ordina- 
tions as null and void. 

The English reformers viewed the matter in the same 
light. They continued to ordain as Christian ministers, but 
not on the ground of their Papal ordinations ; else why 

* Calvini EpistoL, p. 339, fol. edit. Genev., 1575. 
t He refers to Danaeus, Isagog., part ii, lib. 2, c. 22, Perron Repli., 
fol. 92, impress. 1605. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 265 

SO solemn a discussion by the bishops and divines in that 
day on such questions as this ? — 

" Question 13. Whether (if it fortuned a Christian prince 
learned, to conquer certain dominions of infidels, having 
none but temporal learned men vfixh. him,) if it be defended 
by God's law, that he and they should preach and teach 
the word of God there, or no ? And also make and con- 
stitute priests, or no 1 

'^Agreement, In the thirteenth ; concerning the first part, 
whether laymen may preach and teach God's word? They 
DO ALL AGREE, in such a case, ' that not only they may, but 
they ought to teach.' But in the second part, touching the 
constituting of priests of [by] laymen, my lord of York, 
and Doctor Edg worth, doth not agree with the other : they 
say that laymen in no wise can make priests, or have such 
authority ; the bishops of Duresme, St. David's, Westmin- 
ster, Drs. Tresham, Cox, Leighton, Crawford, Symmons, 
Redmayn, and Robertson, say that laymen, in such case, 
have authority to minister the sacraments, and to make 
priests. My lords of London, Carlisle, and Hereford, 
and Dr. Coxen, think that God, in such a case, would give 
the prince authority, call him inwardly, and illuminate him 
or some of his, as he did St. Paul."* 

So the great Protestant champions against Popery, 
Whitaker and Fulke, in the time of Queen Elizabeth : 
speaking to the Papists, " I would not have you think," 
says Whitaker, " that we make such reckoning of your 
orders, as to hold our own vocation unlawful without them." 
" And," says Fulke, " you are highly deceived if you think 
we esteem your offices of bishops, priests, and deacons, 
better than laymen." (And in his Retentive :) " With all 
our hearts we defy, abhor, detest, — your antichristian order s.^^\ 

Bishop Burnet, in his Exposition of the Twenty-third 
Article, says, " I come, in the next place, to consider the 
second part of this article, which is the definition here 
given of those that are lawfully called and sent : this is 
put in very general words, far from that magisterial stiff- 
ness in which some have taken upon them to dictate in 

* Burnet's Coll. of Records, part i, book iii, No. 21. 

t See Ward's England's Reformation, vol. ii, p. 121, where he refers 
to Whitaker Contra Dureum, p. 221, and Fulke's Answer to a Coun- 
terfeit Catholic. 

12 



266 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

this matter. The article does not resolve this into any 

S)articiilar constitution, but leaves the matter open and at 
arge, for such accidents as had happened^ and such as 
might still happen. They who drew it had the state of 
several churches before their eyes that had been differently 
reformed, and although their own had been less forced to 
go out of the beaten path than any other, yet they knew 
that ALL THINGS among themselves had not gone according 
to those rules that ought to be sacred in regular times. 
Necessity has no law, and is a law to itself. If a company 
of Christians find the public worship where they live to be 
so defiled, that they cannot with a good conscience join in 
it ; and if they do not know of any place to which they 
can conveniently go, where they may worship God purely 
and in a regular w^ay : if, I say, such a body find some that 
have been ordained, though to the lower functions, should 
submit itself entirely to their conduct ; or find none of 
those, should, by a common consent, desire some of their 
own number to minister to them in holy things, and should, 
upon that beginning, grow up to a regulated constitution, 
though we are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, 
and could not be done without a very great sin, unless the 
necessity were great and apparent ; yet if the necessity is 
real and not feigned, this is not condemned nor annulled 
by the article ; for when this grows to a constitution, and 
when it was begun by the consent of a body, who are 
supposed to have an authority in such an extraordinary 
case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this 
since that time ; yet we are very sure that not only those 
vjho penned the articles, but the body of this church for 
above half an age after did, notwithstanding those irregu- 
larities, acknoioledge the foreign churches so constituted 
to be TRUE churches, as to all the essentials of a church, 
though they had been at first irregularly formed, and 
continue to be in an imperfect state. And therefore the 
general words in which this part of the article is framed 
seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude 
themP"^ This is worthy of the great reformers ! I need 

* Burnet's account of his work is interesting : " I had been first 
moved to undertake this work by that great prelate," Tillotson, " who 
then sat at the helm ; and after that, [was] determined in it by a com- 
mand that was sacred to me by respect, as well as by duty. Our late 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 267 

not say what a figure Dr. Hook and the Oxford Tract-men 
cut in the presence of such a statement. 

The great reformers and champions of the Reformation 
knew how to distinguish between what was essential to 
the FORMATION of a church in times of difficulty, persecu- 
tion, or confusion, and what was prudent, proper, and 
orderly in a settled and peaceable state of the church. The 
following passage from the Epistles of that great reformer, 
John Calvin, second to none in his day in talents, zeal, 
and influence in the Reformation, will show this : " Con- 
sider this matter fully now, — suppose a person, in a foreign 
region, desires the opportunity and ability of gathering to- 
gether a flock for Christ ; will not those who are in that 
place, and who agree to receive his ministry, by that very 
act of receiving him, elect him as their minister, even 
though no rite be used in the matter ? I confess, indeed, 

primate lived long enough to see the design finished. He read it over 
with an exactness that was peculiar to him. He employed some weeks 
wholly in perusing it, and he corrected it with a care that descended 
even to the smallest matters ; and was such as he thought became the 
importance of the work. And when that was done, he returned it to 
me with a letter, that as it w^as the last I ever received from him, so 
gave the whole such a character, that how much soever that might 
raise its value with true judges, yet in decency it must be suppressed 
by me, as going far beyond what any performance of mine could de- 
serve'. He gave so favourable an account of it to our late blessed 
queen, that she was pleased to tell me she would find leisure to read 
it ; and the last time I was admitted to the honour of waiting on her, she 
commanded me to bring it to her. But she was soon after that carried 
to the Source, to the Fountain of life, in whose light she now sees both 
light and truth. So great a breach as was then made upon all our 
hopes, put a stop upon this, as well as upon much greater designs.'* 
" This work has lien by me ever since : but has been often not only 
review^ed by myself, but by much better judges. The late most learned 
bishop of Worcester," Stillingfleet, " read it very carefully. He marked 
every thing in it that he thought needed a review: and his censure was 
in all points submitted to. He expressed himself so well pleased with 
it, to myself and to some others, that I do not think it becomes me to 
repeat what he said of it. Both the most reverend archbishops, with 
several of the bishops, and a great many learned divines, have also read 
it. I must, indeed, on many accounts own that they may be inclined 
to favour me too much, and to be too partial to me ; yet they looked 
upon this work as a thing of that importance, that I have reason to be- 
lieve they read it over severely : and if some small corrections may be 
taken for an indication that they saw no occasion for greater ones, I 
had this likewise from several of them.." — Preface, pp. 1, 2, fol. Lend., 
1699. These things are important. 



268 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

that where a due order of doing such things has been 
ESTABLISHED in any church, it ought to be maintained, 
fixed, and immoveable ; but the case is widely different, 
where the Y&ry foundations have to be laid anew. For 
what shall we say as to most of the churches raised up 
by the Lord through Germany ? Shall we deny that those 
who first laboured there in preaching the gospel were re- 
ceived as true pastors, though no rite accompanied their 
admission to that office ? I do not wish to bind you to the 
authority of men ; but I produce this example as confirm- 
ing the position I laid down, viz., that the election or ap- 
pointment of a minister is not necessarily the same in an 
unsettled state of a church, as it is where a certain form 
and order have been already established."* This is the 
view of the Scriptures, of the earliest fathers, and of the 
greatest reformers. The contrary opinion is indeed be- 
longing to the very essence of Popery. It is an attempt 
to make that necessary which God never made so ; and 
then to bind the church to human ordinations, personal 
succession, episcopal consecrations, priestly absolutions : 
even while, by undeniable history, many of these men 
have been wicked, heretics, murderers, simonists, traffick- 
ers in the souls and bodies of mankind, shedding the blood 
of the saints, and leading mankind to destruction ! 

The case of the English reformers was a diflicult one. 
They saw the truth ; but a great part of the nation was 
still under much Popish ignorance. The case very much 
resembled that of St. Paul with those Jews who were still 
zealous for the law of Moses. Paul, as a mere prudential 
measure, took Timothy and circumcised him, rejecting the 
obligation of circumcision as essential to Christianity. 
The English reformers, as a prudential measure, because 
of the multitudes who were still zealous for the ceremonies 
of Popery, retained, in form, the ordination and consecra- 
tion of the Popish bishops ; not because of their validity 
and necessity, by divine right, to the existence of the 
Christian church and Christian ordinances ; for they main- 
tained the contrary. The primitive church lived down 
those Jewish prejudices ; and circumcision, even as a 
circumstance, was utterly put away. The Anglican church 
should have done the same. It should have gone on to 

* Epist., p. 349, edit. Gen., 1575. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 269 

declare boldly, that the ordination of its ministers was 
based on the spiritual and Scriptural qualijications of the 
men ; upon the call of God, moving them by the Holy 
Ghost to take upon them the ministry ; and upon the call 
of the church, solemnly receiving them as the ministers of 
God, in the gospel of his Son. It has failed to do this; 
and the strenuous attempts made by many of its erring 
advocates to maintain the essential importance of Popish 
ordinations, episcopal consecration, personal succession, <fec. 
— these efforts, I say, have resulted in a constant leaning 
to Popery, in many divines and members of the Church 
of England. Wherever and by whomsoever these things 
are thus maintained, that church becomes a half-way house 
to Popery. 

Both the foreign and English reformers had great fears 
about what was left in the Church of England of Popish 
origin, lest it should afterward lead to the strengthening 
of Popery. Cranmer and his coadjutors did what they 
could, according to the times, and hoped their successors 
would finish what they had begun. Calvin, writing to 
Cranmer, A. D. 1551, then archbishop of Canterbury, 
says, " But to speak freely, I greatly fear, and the fear is 
becoming general here, lest by so much delay, the autumn 
or harvest should pass, and at length the coldness of a 
perpetual winter should succeed. You will need to stimu- 
late yourself, as the burden of old age steals upon you ; 
lest in leaving the world your conscience should distress 
you, because, through some tardiness in proceeding, all 
things should be left in confusion. I mention things as 
being in confusion, because outward superstitions dirQ so 
corrected as to leave innu?nerable branches that will be con- 
stantly sprouting out again. Indeed, I hear that such a 
mass of Popish corruptions remain, as not only ob- 
scure, but almost bury the pure and genuine worship of 
God."* That Cranmer was not offended with this plain- 
ness is evident, for, in apparently a later letter, Calvin says 
the archbishop of Canterbury admonished him " that he 
could not do a more useful thing than to write frequently 
to the king."t The Popish, and semi-popish bishops 
and divines, conforming and nonconforming, did their 
utmost to hinder the removal of these evils. There is a 

* Calvini Epist., p. lOL t Page 384. 



270 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

letter to Calvin from a venerable, aged, sorrowing, and 
almost dying person on this subject, dated Cambridge, 
1550, pp. 96, 97. Zanchy wrote a bold letter to Queen 
Elizabeth on the Popish vestments, requesting her not to 
enforce them, 1571. The meek and peaceful Peter Mar- 
tyr, who spent a long time at Oxford, endeavouring to pro- 
mote and defend the Reformation, was written to by the 
venerable Hooper, bishop of Gloucester, on the subject of 
the Popish vestments. Hooper withstood their use. Mar- 
tyr, at that time, writing in answer to Hooper's letter, 
declares he most entirely approves of their removal, but 
thinks that as they were not fundamental matters, they 
might be tolerated for a time : and then, afterward, in- 
creasing piety in the church would remove them : " for," 
says he, " if v/e first allow the gospel time to be propa- 
gated, and strike deep its roots, men will then perhaps be 
persuaded better and more easily to remove these external 
trappings." This letter is dated 1550. However, in a 
few years he altogether changed his mind. Writing to 
the Popish nobles, (professing to embrace the gospel,) and 
to their ministers, after recommending them to take care 
that " no splendour of names or titles, no kings, no fathers, 
no bishops, no popes, no councils, &c., should blind their 
eyes ; — that the Scriptures alone should be the supreme 
and infallible rule of their faith ;" he comes to say, " Use 
all your vigilance, brethren, that the house of God, defiled, 
and almost destroyed by antichrist, should be with diligent 
care rebuilt. Extirpate utterly all superstitious and false 
notions. This I the rather admonish, because / have seen 
some who have only cropt the leaves, and flowers, and 
buds of old superstition : but, having spared the roots, 
they afterward shot up again to the great injury of the Lord's 
vineyard. Let all the seeds of evil, and the rottenness of 
the roots be extirpated in the beginning. For if this be 
neglected at the first, (I knoio what I say,) afterward it 
will be much more difficult to pluck them up." — February 
14th, 1556. And see Bishop Burnet's Letters; the one 
from Zurich, p. 55, London, 1727, where he shows that 
the bishops Jewel, Home, Cranmer, Grindal, took the 
same views, but that the queen was obstinately opposed 
to the removal of these things. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 271 

SECTION XIV. 

GENUINE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

We have now searched this pseudo-apostolical succes- 
sion scheme to the bottom, and have found it a baseless 
fabric. Those who have attempted its construction, what- 
ever they might be besides, have in this displayed a dis- 
position to erect a system of spiiitual tyranny over the 
whole church of God. Many have been deceived by 
them. Multitudes of the holiest people upon earth have, 
in different ages, suffered bonds, imprisonment, and death, 
under the operation of this antichristian scheme. It will 
be proper to exhibit in a closing section a view of genu- 
ine APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION — the succcssiou of truth and 
holiness. God has always had a true church : and he 
always will have a true church. The gates of hell never 
have prevailed against it ; and we are assured by himself 
that they never shall. This church has always stood, as 
to its foundation, on the truth, a,nd faithfulness, and power 
of God; and never on any ceremonies or circumstances of 
church government, or any order of men: thus it will stand 

FOR EVER. 

Let us review the past. — In the brief divine history 
'which we have of the antediluvian world, there is no inti- 
mation that the church depended on any order of men, as 
ministers of religion. That there \n ere preachers of right- 
eousness, is plainly testified in the Scriptures. But from 
all that we can learn, they were not confined to any unin- 
terrupted succession, nor even initiated by any rite of 
ordination. They appear to have been good men, who, 
(blessed with the knowledge of God's favour to themselves, 
and of his plan of saving sinners,) were moved by the 
Holy Ghost to testify the judgments of God against sin, and 
his mercy to those who returned to him by repentance, and 
by trust in that mercy. This was the case for about two 
thousand years. From the deluge to Moses matters 
continued in the same state. The priesthood of Aaron 
was designed to typify the priesthood of Christ : as much 
oneness, therefore, and continuity was given to it as human 
things v/ould allow. Hence a personal succession, m one 



272 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

family, was the general principle of the high priesthood. 
Yet this was sometimes changed by divine direction; but 
what is more, it was broken and interrupted by men; 
and yet those who ministered in that office, though not of 
the succession, were not repudiated on this account even by 
our Lord himself, or his apostles. Dr. Hammond, a com- 
petent and unexceptionable authority, gives the following 
account of this matter : " At this time the land being 
under the Roman emperor, the succession of the high priests 
was now changed, the one lineal descendant in the family 
of Aaron, which was to continue for life, being not permit- 
ted to succeed, but some other, whom he pleased, named to 
that office by the Roman procurator every year, or renewed 
as often as he pleased. To which purpose is that of The- 
ophylact : ' They who were at that time high priests of 
the Jews, invaded that dignity, bought it, and so destroyed 
the law, which prescribed a succession in the family of 
Aaron.' It is manifest, that at this time the Roman prcR- 
feet did, ad libitum, when he would, and that sometimes 
once a year, put in whom he pleased into the pontificate, 
to officiate in Aaron! s office, instead of the lineal descend- 
ant from him. And that is it of which Josephus so fre- 
quently mahes mention. After the race of the Assamonaei, it 
seems Jesus, the son of Phoebes was put in ; then he be- 
ing put out, Simon is put in his stead ; this Simon put out, 
and Matthias in his stead. Ant., 1. 17, c. 6, — then Mat- 
thias put out by Herod about the time of Christ's birth, and 
Joazar put in his stead. Ant., 1. 17, c. 8, — ^then Joazar put 
out by Archelaus, and Eleazar put in, c. 15; and he again 
put out, and Jesus, the son of Sia, put in. Then in the first of 
Quirinus, there is mention again of Joazar, son of Boethi- 
us, 1. 18, c. 1, who it seems was put in, and so turned 
out again by Quirinus the same year, and Ananus, the son 
of Seth, put in his stead, who was the Annas here men- 
tioned by St. Luke. Then Gratus, at the beginning of 
Tiberius's reign, put out Annas and put in Ismael : and in 
his stead Eleazar, x\nnas's son ; then in his stead Simon; 
and after his year, Caiaphas here, who continued from 
that, all his and Pilate's time, till Yitellius displaced him, 
and put Jonathan, another son of Annas, in his stead; and 
in his, a year or two after, Theophilus, another son of An- 
nas, whom Agrippa again displaced, Ant., 1. xix, c. 5, and 



^ ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 273 

put in Simon ; and turning him out the same year, put in 
Matthias, a fourth son of Annas, in the beginning of Clau- 
dius's reign, some nine years after the death of Christ ; and 
soon removing him, put in Elioneus, c. 7. Then it seems 
Canthares was put in, for in his place Herod put in Joseph, 
1. XX, c. 1 ; and in his stead, about fifteen years after the 
death of Christ, Ananias, son of Nebedeus, c. 3. After him 
we find Jonathan, then Ismael, then Joseph, then Annas, 
another son of Annas, then Jesus, son of Damneus, then Je- 
sus, son of Gamaliel, then Matthias, in whose time the Jew- 
ish war began."* Theophylact, we find, says that the law 
of succession was destroyed by these confusions. Had our 
succession divines been doctors of the law at the time, they 
must have made it out that the church of God then became 
extinguished : yet we never find a single intimation of 
the kind by our Lord or his apostles. From the creation, 
therefore^ to the coming of Christy the church never was built 
on any men^ or order of men, hut was founded in the living 
God. 

A GOSPEL MINISTRY is God's own positive institution. 
Ministers are God's gifts to the church. When they are 
what they ought to be, they are of very great importance 
and utility ; but when any of them become lords over 
God's heritage, God can lay them aside, and their personal 
succession too, and can raise up others who shall walk 
more fully after his will, and whose ministry he will con- 
firm and bless by the conversion of sinners and the 
increased holiness and edification of his people. This the 
history of the church in all ages testifies. Without design- 
ing to say one word against episcopacy, meaning by that a 
prudential and well-guarded superintendency ; or against the 
simple fact of a succession of ministers, suppose it could 
be proved to be true, — both of which, if not urged to ac- 
complish purposes of exclusion and persecution in the Chris- 
tian church, may be great blessings ; yet let the truth be 
spoken as to the fact of the operation of episcopacy, as 
hitherto established, and of the scheme of succession as it 
has existed hitherto in general in the Christian church : 
both have been at the head of nearly all the oppression 
and persecution that have been found in the church to the 
present day. I say, as they have existed. But the abuse 

* Hammond's note on Luke iii, v. 2. 
12* 



274 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

is no valid argument against the use. I believe abuse 
very early got into the church in an unguarded and not 
sufficiently controlled form of episcopacy. It generated 
into tyranny of the worst kind. Popery is its genuine off- 
spring. Great, however, as I acknowledge the abuse to have 
been, I do still think, that, under just regulations, it might 
have an important use. The names of kings and tyrants 
were synonymous in ancient times ; and both were alike 
hated. But what true Englishman will say that the office 
of king, as supreme civil magistrate, under just regulations, 
that is, a limited monarchy, is not a blessing ? Whoever 
would say so, — the writer would not. Let episcopacy, 
then, be placed under such regulations and restraints as 
shall not admit of any claim of divine right on the part of 
bishops for their superintendency and government. Let 
those who value episcopacy, and especially the bishops 
themselves, correct all abuses in the system. The Eng- 
lish reformers placed it generally on the right basis : the 
detail wanted perfecting. Time has shown the defects of 
the detail : let experience teach wisdom. If these things 
be not done, let no man trust an unguarded episcopacy ; it 
will do what it has always done, viz., degenerate into 
Popery. 

Whenever a true revival of vital godliness has taken 
place, it has usually been done, not by the pretended sue- 
cession bishops, but generally, in spite of them: it has been 
done — not by those whom succession-men assume to have 
had the sole power among mankind of continuing the 
church of God upon earth ; but by those who, according 
to their absurd scheme, had no power to continue it beyond 
a single generation, even if they had so much as that. 
The Waldenses, in the valleys of the Alps ; the Lollards 
in England ; Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zuingle and 
Knox ; the Puritans in their day ; and the Wesleys and 
Whitefield in still later times, are all in full proof of what 
I say. The English reformers themselves do not con- 
stitute an exception to this remark. Who broke up the 
fallow ground ? who sowed the seed of the Reformation in 
England ? and who watered it with their tears and with 
their blood, before Henry YIII. quarrelled with the pope 1 
— the bishops 1 O, no ! no ! they imprisoned, and shed 
the blood of the saints like water ; but, as an order of min- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 275 

isters, they sided with antichrist till Henry quarrelled with 
the pope. For full proof of all this see Fox's Book of 
Martyrs. Protestantism had its worst enemies among the 
apostolical succession bishops. I rejoice to except, after 
that time, and record with due praise, such hallowed names 
as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, and Jewel ; but they 
are the exceptions and not the rule. And it must be con- 
fessed that, since that time, all the persecution of the Puri- 
tans and Nonconformists originated generally with the 
bishops. It is intolerable to see the public mind abused 
by the grandiloquence often employed in speaking about 
episcopacy as it has existed ; the blessing of bishops ; of 
an apostolical ministry coming through the hands of bish- 
ops, &c. Grotius has never been suspected of disaffection 
to episcopacy or bishops ; yet he speaks thus plainly — 
" Qui ecclesiasticajn historiam legit, quid legit nisi episcopo- 
rum vitia? — He who reads ecclesiastical history, what 
does he read but the vices of bishops ?"* 

Let us distinguish between what things have been, and 
what they ought to be. Every true minister is a Scriptural 
bishop. Every modern bishop is a mere superintendent 
by the right of human authority. Many excellent men 
have been found among the bishops. This office is im- 
portant, and may be highly useful under proper regulations. 
Hitherto it has been- wanting in these regulations in what 
are called Episcopal churches ; and it has been, on the 
whole, the source of great evils to the church at large. Let 
it be restored to its proper use. Then call that form of 
church government by what name you please. No wise 
man will quarrel about names. Against a duly regulated 
episcopacy, as already explained, we have nothing to say. 
Episcopacy hy divine right is a modern invention : it has 
been the source of much oppression. The personal succes- 
sion scheme is a scheme adopted at present hy bigots for 
the purpose of persecution. We have treated both 
without ceremony. Both are false — both lead to Popery. 
The succession of faith is the only succession essential to 
a Christian church. 

Accordingly, the fathers took this as the only supreme 
and essential rule of succession,Y\z., \he preaching oiihe truths 
of the faith, of the doctrine taught by the apostles. See 

* Grotii Epistolse, No. 22, p. 7. Amstel, 1687. 



276 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the quotations following ; also sec. vi. Now who have 
been distinguished for this apostolic preaching ? — the 
bishops and the great succession-men ? By no means ! 
Leave out the first six hundred years ; they do not belong 
to these men ; their doctrine of succession was not then 
held : the only essential succession then maintained was 
the succession of faith. Since that time — who have been 
distinguished for apostolical preaching? — the bishops of 
Rome 1 Nay, they have generally not preached at all. 
Bishop Jewel in his day remarked, " These nine hundred 
years, I say, since Gregory the first of that name, [A. D. 
604,] it can hardly he found that ever any bishop of Rome 
was seen in a pulpit P Sermon on Matt, x, 9. The 
same thing is true, to a great extent, of all the bishops of 
that church, and of all the branches of it up to the Re- 
formation. Hear Bishop Jewel again, in his sermon on 
1 Cor. iv, 1,2," Christ said unto Peter, Lovest thou me ? 
feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my flock. But our 
great clerkes, our popes, our cardinals, our bishops, would 
seldom or never make a sermon : they fed not God's sheepe, 
they fed not God's lambs, they had no regard to God's 
flocke : and how then would they say, they were the min- 
isters of Christ, and stewards of God's secrets 1 I leave 
out much of purpose, good brethren, I wittingly overpasse 
heere many things else that I could say heerein : the time 
would faile me, if I should rehearse unto you all those things 
wherein they have most shamefully abused themselves^ 
They were, as a whole, the opposers and corrupters of 
the TRUTH. They formed one continued heresy. The 
apostolical preachers were the Waldenses, the Lollards, 
Wicklifle, Huss, and their coadjutors ; none of them suc- 
cession bishops, nor their partizans, but the very opposite, 
and generally out of this pretended succession. Since the 
Reformation, the Protestant churches in general have been 
out of this pretended succession. Whether the succession 
were true or false, the early bishops of the Church of 
England claimed no exclusive rights and authority from it. 
Luther, Calvin, Zuingle, P. Martyr, Melancthon, &c., &c., 
were not of it, as founders or reformers of churches. 
Since the time of Bancroft and Laud, the bishops and 
clergy of the Church of England have been greatly sur- 
passed in apostolical preaching by the Puritans, the Non- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 277 

conformists, the Dissenters, and the Methodists. The 
limits of this Essay allow not of an extended comparison, 
but the thing speaks for itself. Laud's plan, but for the 
Puritans, would have brought in Popery. The age of 
mere rationalism in preaching was not a match for infi- 
delity. It wanted Christ crucified, and the demon- 
stration of the Spirit> The reader may see some good 
observations and illustrations on the point of rational 
preaching by the leading divines of the Establishment from 
about 1700, &c., in the Rev. Edward Bickersteth's excel- 
lent work, " The Christian Student," chap, ix, sec. 6. The 
following passages from that work are strikingly to the 
point. He quotes Dr. Vicesimus Knox, as saying, in his 
" Christian Philosophy," that he who receives divine 
teaching " will find that some of the most learned men, 
the most voluminous writers on theological subjects, were 
totally ignorant of Christianity. He will find that they 
were ingenious heathen philosophers, assuming the name 
of Christians, and forcibly paganizing Christianity for the 
sake of pleasing the world, of extending their fame, and 
enjoying secular honours and lucrative pre-eminence." 
Bishop Lavington, says Mr. Bickersteth, may be introduced 
as another unexceptionable testimony on this subject. 
This bishop says, addressing the clergy, (somewhere about 
1750,) " My brethren, I beg you will rise up with me 
against moral preaching. We have long been attempting 
the reformation of the nation by discourses of this kind. 
With what success ? — None at all. On the contrary^ we 

HAVE DEXTEROUSLY PREACHED THE PEOPLE INTO DOWN- 
RIGHT INFIDELITY. We must change our voice. We 
must preach Christ, and him crucified. Nothing but the 
gospel is, nothing besides will be found to be, the poiver of 
God unto salvation. Let me, therefore, again and again 
request, may I not add, let me charge you, to preach Jesus 
and salvation through his name." 

Mr. Bickersteth is an excellent man, and, on the 
whole, a candid writer ; but it seems to have been too 
much for him, as it has been for many others, to do any 
thing like justice to the labours of the Wesleys and 
Whitefield, as instruments of divine Providence in the 
glorious revival of religion which has taken place since 
the beginning of the eighteenth century. Any statement by 



278 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the writer, as a Wesleyan, might be thought partial. It 
may not be amiss, therefore, to give the testimony of the 
Rev. Dr. Haweis, himself a clergyman, from his History 
of the Church in the Eighteenth Century. He says, 
" Through the moralists in the pulpit, and the deists in the 
press, Christianity was reduced to a very emaciated figure. 
Even the Dissenters, who affected greater purity of religion, 
had drunk deep into the general apostacy, and sunk into a 
worldly, careless spirit. The Presbyterians, especially, 
diverged into the errors of Arianism. The Independents 
were few, and but little attended to ; though among them 
the sounder doctrines were maintained, but in general too 
cold and dead-hearted ; and the Baptists hardly had a 
name. The Quakers, left to their silent meetings, were 
declining and forgotten ; and the other sects sunk into 
insignificance. It was in this state of torpor and depart- 
ure from truth and godliness, [A. D. 1729,] that at Oxford, 
one of our universities, a few, chiefly young men, began 
to feel the deplorable spiritual ignorance and corrup- 
tion around them. John and Charles Wesley, the first 
and most distinguished leaders in this revival of evangelical 
truth, were brothers : the one, fellow of Lincoln College ; 
the other, student of Christ Church [College.] With these 
associated a number of other students, whose minds were 
similarly affected. Mr. Ingham, Mr. Whitefield, and Mr. 
Hervey, were afterward peculiarly distinguished. The 
multitudes which followed them were much affected : a 
great and visible change was produced in the minds of 
many. The attention paid to these ministers, and the 
blessing evident on their labours, roused them to increas- 
ing vigorous exertions. They were always at their work, 
preaching wherever they could procure admittance into the 
churches. 

" Though in age Mr. Whitefield was younger than the 
Wesleys, yet in zeal and labours he had no superior : his 
amazing exertions are well known, and the effects of them 
were prodigious through the whole land. He confined 
not his ministry to England — Scotland enjoyed the benefit 
of his visits, and furnished innumerable evidences of the 
power with which he spoke ; nor were his efforts restrict- 
ed to Britain, but extended to America, whither the Mr. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 279 

Wesley s had first led the way. Suffice it to observe, that 
by the labours of these indefatigable men, a flood of gospel 
light broke upon the nation. At first they were wholly 
confined to the Church of England, as their attachment to 
it by education was strong : and had they been fixed in 
any settled station, they had, not improbably, lived and 
died good men, useful men, but unnoticed and unknown. 
A series of providences had designed them for greater and 
more extensive usefulness. The churches growing una- 
ble to contain the crowds which flocked after them, Mr. 
Whitefield first, at Bristol, [1739,] resolved to visit and 
preach to the wild colliers in the wood, who had seldom 
attended any worship ; and his signal success among them 
encouraged his persevering eflforts. On his return to Lon- 
don, he used the same means of field-preaching at Kenning- 
ton Common and Moorfields, being now generally excluded 
from the churches, to which he had himself somewhat 
contributed, by perhaps too severe animadversions on the 
clergy, as well as the envy and disgust that his singular 
popularity had occasioned. 

" Nor were Mr. John Wesley and his brother Charles 
less zealously employed, but also took the field and 
preached everywhere. The congregations under the 
canopy of heaven were prodigious : sometimes, indeed, 
riotous and insulting, but in general solemn and attentive. 
By these labours multitudes were daily added to the 
church of such as should be saved." Then, after giving 
an account of the doctrines and discipline of the Calvinis- 
tic and Wesleyan Methodists, he adds, " It is observable, 
that all these great bodies, though driven to worship in 
places of their own erection, in order to secure the preach- 
ing of such evangelical principles as they cannot find in 
the churches in general, would be happy to have the cause 
removed that hath compelled them to these expedients : 
and were the bishops and clergy zealous to inculcate the 
great fundamentals of gospel truth, and to adorn the doc- 
trine by a life of spiritual religion, the greater part of these 
partial seceders would probably return to the forms and 
worship of the Established Church. As it is, their num- 
bers every day increase ; and while carelessness and luke- 
warmness cause the noblest edifices to be deserted, every 



280 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

little meeting is crowded with hearers, whenever a minis- 
ter, earnest and evangelical, labours from his heart for the 
salvation of men's souls. 

" Such has been the progress of what is called Method- 
ism in the greater bodies that more immediately bear that 
name : but it has spread in a prodigious manner, both 
among those of the Church, as well as the dissenters from 
it, and has been the means of rekindling the zeal of very 
many, so as to produce a vast alteration for the better in 
the conduct of thousands and tens of thousands. Predi- 
lection for the Establishment strongly attaches many to it, 
who have received their religious impressions from one or 
other of these Methodist societies, or from some of their own 
clergy, who lie under the imputation of being methodisti- 
colly inclined, that is, such as literally and with apparent 
zeal inculcate the doctrinal articles they have subscribed, 
and live in a state of greater piety and separation from the 
world, than the generality of their brethren. The number 
of these is of late amazingly increased. Where before 
scarcely a man of this stamp could be found, some hun- 
dreds, as rectors or curates in the Established Church, in- 
culcate the doctrines which are branded with Methodism: 
and everywhere, throughout the kingom, one or more, and 
sometimes several, are to be found within the compass of 
a few miles, who approve themselves faithful labourers 
in the Lord's vineyard. They naturally associate among 
themselves, and separate from the corruption which is in 
the world. Everywhere they carry the stamp of peculi- 
arity, and are marked by their brethren. Though care- 
fully conforming to established rules, and strictly regu- 
lar, they are everywhere objects of reproach, because 
their conduct cannot but reflect on those who choose not 
to follow such examples. They pay conscientious atten- 
tion to the souls of their parishioners ; converse with them 
on spiritual subjects wherever they visit ; encourage prayer 
and praise in the several families under their care ; often 
meet them for these purposes ; and engage them to meet 
and edify one another. Their exemplary conversation pro- 
cures them reverence from the poor of the flock, as their 
faithful rebukes often bring upon them the displeasure of 
the worldling, the dissipated, and the careless. They join 
in none of the fashionable amusements of the age, fre- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 281 

quent not the theatres or scenes of dissipation, court no 
favour of the great, or human respects ; their time and 
services are better employed in the more important labours 
of the ministry, preaching the word in season, out of sea- 
son, and counting their work their best wages. They 
labour, indeed, under many discouragements. All the 
superior orders of the clergy shun their society. They 
have been often treated by their diocesans with much in- 
solence and oppression. They can number no bishop, nor 
scarcely a dignitary among them. Yet their number, 
strength, and respectability, continue increasing. May 
they grow into a host, like the host of God !" 

The whole view of these facts goes to show, to demon- 
strate, that God never confined his church to personal suc- 
cessions and episcopal consecrations ; but the very re- 
verse. The chief persons in this pretended succession 
have been the principal corrupters and opposers of the 
truth. Whenever gospel truth has been preserved against 
error, and a real revival of apostolic faith and gospel 
holiness has been brought about, God has employed men 
NOT in this scheme of succession. The gospel would 

HAVE PERISHED IF LEFT TO THIS SUCCESSION. Man COr- 

rupts every thing. He is not to be trusted with so precious 
a treasure as Christianity. God keeps his own work in 
his own hands. He and he only holds the keys to the 
ministry of his word. He lets no toolves, no wicked men, 
into his fold. When a regular ministry is Scriptural and 
pious, God greatly blesses it : it is an unspeakable bless- 
ing to the church. But when ministers forsake God, God 
forsakes them. He then raises up others ; he sets his own 
seal to their piety, doctrine, labours, and sufferings, by 
making them abundantly successful in the conversion of 
sinners, and in the edification and extension of his church. 
The residue of the Spirit is with him. The hearts of all 
men are in his keeping. He can raise up and qualify in- 
struments for his work from any quarter. The fishermen 
of Galilee — the poor men of Lyons — the Huguenots in 
France — the Lollards in England — Luther, the monk, in 
Germany— the Wesleys at Oxford — these, these have been 
God's instruments ! Well ! let all human schemes perish 
in their turn, when abused to prevent the progress of gos- 
pel truth and holiness. The Lord liveth ! blessed be his 



282 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

holy name ! Blessed be his name for his servants, for his 
martyrs, his confessors, his holy ministers of every name : 
above all, blessed be his holy name, for the unspeakable 
gift of his holy truth transmitted by the sacred vScrip- 
TURES, and a holy ministry from generation to generation! 
May it more than ever prevail ! and may the earth be fill- 
ed with his glory ! Amen ! Amen ! 

The only true succession essential to the existence of 
a Christian church, then, is the succession of faith, of 
truth of doctrine, and holiness of life. We shall insert 
some noble testimonies on this point, and then conclude 
the subject. 

Iren^us : — " In the very book in which he employs 
the argument of succession, he says he brings his ' demon- 
strations,^ not from persons, but ' from the Scriptures ;' — 
which Scriptures are henceforward to be the foundation 
Siud pillar of our faith. In book iv, c. 43-45, he says, we 
are ' to obey those presbyters who have the divine gift of 
the faith ;' that we are ' to forsake^ all wicked ministers ; 
and are to learn from such as have this divine gift of the 
truth.'' 

Tertullian : — "But if the heretics feign or fabricate 
such a [personal] succession, this will not help them. For 
their doctrine itself compared with the doctrine of the 
apostles, v/ill, by its own diversity and contrariety, pro- 
nounce against them. To 's^wl^ form of trial will appeal be 
made by those churches henceforward daily establishing, 
which, though they have neither any of the apostles, nor 
apostolical men for their founders, yet all agreeing in the 
same faith, are, from this consanguinity of doctrine, to be 
esteemed not the less apostolical than the former."* 

Cyprian : — ^Referring to Stephen, bishop of RomxC, 
pleading tradition for what Cyprian believed to be a great 
error, answers, " What does he mean by tradition ? Does 
he mean the authority of Christ in the Gospels, and of the 
apostles in their Epistles ? — let this tradition be sacred : 
for if we return to this Head and Original of divine tradi- 
tion, human error will cease. If the channel of the water 
of life, at first coming down in large and copious flov/, 
should suddenly fail, should we not return to the Fountain ? 
— If the channel becomes corrupted and leaky, so that the 

* De Prescript, c. 32. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 283 

water does not flow constantly and regularly, it must be 
repaired in order to the supply of water to the citizens 
coining down from the Fountain. This ought the ministers 
of God now to do, observing as their rule the divine pre- 
cepts, that if any thing has tottered and shaken from the 
truth, it should be restored to the authority of Christ, the 
evangelists, and the apostles ; and all our proceedings are 
to take their rise there, whence all order and divine 
authority rise — for custom without truth is only 
ANTIQUATED ERROR. Therefore, forsaking error, let us 
follow the truth, knowing that, as in Esdras's opinion, 
truth is victorious, so it is written, ' truth remains and 
prevails for ever,' it lives and reigns tbrough endless ages. 
Neither is there Vviili truth any distinction or respect of 
persons, but only that which is just it ratifies ; neither is 
there in the jurisdiction of truth any iniquity ; but the 
strength, and dominion, and the majesty and power of all 
generations. Blessed be the God of truth ! This truth 
Christ shows in the gospel, saying, ' I am the truth.' 
Therefore, if we be in Christ and Christ in us ; if we 
remain in the truth, and the truth abide in us, let us hold 
those things which are of the truth."^ 

Gregory Nazienzen : — In his Oration in praise of 
Athanasius, speaking of his election as bishop of Alexan- 
dria to the chair of St. Mark the evangelist, who is sup- 
posed to have founded that church, says that Athanasius 
was " not less the successor of St. Mark's piety, than he 
was of his pre-eminence. For if," says he, " you consider 
Athanasius only as one in the number of bishops of Alex- 
andria, he was the most remote from St. Mark : but if you 
regard his piety, you find him the very next to him. This 
succession of piety ought to be esteemed the true succes- 
sion. For he who maintains the same doctrine o{ faith, is 
partner in the same chair ; but he who defends a contrary 
doctrine, ought, though in the chair of St. Mark, to be 
esteemed an adversary to it. This man, indeed, may have 
a nominal succession, but the other has the very thing 
itsef the succession in deed and in truth. Neither 
is he who usurps the chair by violent means to be esteemed 
in the succession ; but he who is pressed into the office : 
not he who violates all law in his election, but he v/ho is 

* Epist. 74, edit. Pamcl, 1589. 



284 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

elected in a manner consistent with the laws of the case : 
not he who holds doctrines opposed to what St. Mark taught, 
but he who is endued with the same faith as St. Mark. 
Except, indeed, you intend to maintain such a succession 
as that of sickness succeeding to health ; light succeeding 
to darkness ; a storm to a calm ; and madness succeeding 
to soundness of mind ! It was not with Athanasius as it is 
sometimes with tyrants, who, being suddenly raised to the 
throne, break out into acts of violence and excess : such 
conduct as this is the mark of adulterate and spurious 
bishops, and who are unworthy of the dignity to which 
they are raised. These having no previous qualifications 
for their office, never having borne the trials of virtue, 
commence disciples and masters at the same time, and 
attempt to consecrate others while unholy themselves. Yes- 
terday they were guilty of sacrilege — to-day they are made 
ministers of the sanctuary ; yesterday they were ungodly 
— to-day they are made reverend fathers in God : old in 
sin, ignorant of piety, and having proceeded by violence 
in all the rest, (as not being influenced by divine but human 
motives,) they crown the whole by exercising their ty- 
ranny UPON PIETY itself."* 

St. Ambrose : — " They have not the inheritance, are 
not the successors of Peter, who have not Peter's faith."t 

Calvin : — " We have pretty opponents to deal with, 
who, when they are clearly convicted of corrupting the 
doctrines and worship of Christianity, then take shelter 
under the pretence that no molestation ought to be offered 
to the successors of the apostles. Now, this question of 
being successors of the apostles must be decided by an 
examination of the doctrines maintained. To this exa- 
mination, confident of the goodness of our cause, we cheer- 
fully appeal. Let them not reply, that they have a right to 
assume that their doctrine is apostolic ; for this is begging 
the question. What ! shall they, who have all things con- 
trary to the apostles, prove they are their true successors, 
solely by the continuance of time ? As well might a mur- 
derer, having slain the master of the house and taken pos- 
session of the same, maintain that he was the lawful heir. 
The popedom, indeed, differs more from that government 

* Athanasii 0pp., vol. ii, Appendix, edit. Paris, 1627. 
t De Poenitentia, lib. i, cap. 6. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 285 

which the apostles established, than the most cruel and 
bloody tyranny ever differed from the best constituted 
government for the establishment of civil liberty. Who 
would tolerate the tyrant, that, having murdered the right- 
ful sovereign, only gloried in the usurpation of his name ? 
No less is their impudence, who, having ruined that go- 
vernment which Christ commanded and the apostles estab- 
lislied, make a 'pretence of succession for the support of 
their tyranny. For, suppose that such an unbroken line, 
as they pretend, really existed, yet if their apostleship had 
perished, (and it necessarily did by their corruption of 
God's worship, by their destruction of the offices of Christ, 
by the extinction of the light of doctrine among them, and 
the pollution of the sacrament,) what then becomes of their 
succession? Except, indeed, as an heir succeeds to the 
dead, so they, true piety being extinct among them, suc- 
ceed to domination. But seeing they have changed en- 
tirely the government of the church, the chasm between 
them and the apostles is so vast as to exclude any com- 
munication of right from the one to the other. And to 
conclude the point in one word, / deny the succession 
scheme, as a thing utterly voithout foundations^ 

Melancthon : — *' The church is not hound to an ordi- 
nary SUCCESSION, as they call it, of bishops, hut to the 
GOSPEL. When bishops do not teach the truth, an ordi- 
nary SUCCESSION avails nothing to the church ; they ought 
of necessity to be forsaken."! 

Peter Martyr : — " It is a most trifling thing which 
they" [the Papists] "object against us," [the reformers,] 
" that we want the right succession. It is quite enough 
for us that we have succeeded to the faith which the 
apostles taught, and which was maintained by the holy 
fathers in the best ages of the church. "J 

Zanchius : — " For we know that, as, on the one hand, 
where true doctrine alone, without a continued succession 
of bishops from the beginning, can be shown to exist, 
there is a true church, and a true and legitimate ministry ; 
so, on the other hand, where personal succession alone is 
boasted of the purity of true Christian doctrine having de- 

* Calvini Vera Eccles. Ref. Ratio. 

t Loci Com. de Signis monst. Eccles., ed. Erlang., 1838. 

X Loci Com., class, iv, cap. 1, 



286 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

parted, there is no legitimate ministry ; seeing that both 
the church, and the ministry of the church, are hoimd not 
to persons^ but to the loord of God."* 

Bradford the martyr : — The Popish archdeacon, 
Harpsfield, is examining him. '' Harpsficld : It (the 
Romish church) hath also succession of bishops. And here 
he made much ado to prove that this was an essential 
point. Bradford : You say as you would have it ; for if 
this point fail you, all the church that you go about to set 
up will fall down. You will not find in all the 
Scripture this your essential point of the succes- 
sion OF bishops. In Christ's church antichrist will sit. — 
The ministry of God's word and ministers be an essential 
point. But to translate this to the bishops and their suc- 
cession, is a plain subtilty. And therefore that it may be 
plain, I will ask you a question, — Tell me, whether that 
the Sciipture knew any difference between bishops and 
ministers, which ye call priests, [presbyters ?] Harpsfield : 
No. Bradford : Well, then go on forward and let us see 
what ye will get now by the succession of bishops ; that 
is, of ministers, which can be understood of such bishops 
as minister not, but lord it. Harpsfield: I perceive that 
ye are far out of the way. Bradford : If Christ or his 
apostles being here on earth had been required by the 
prelates of the church then, to have made a demonstration 
of that church by succession of such high priests as had 
approved the doctrines which he taught, I think that Christ 
would have done as I do, that is, [he would] have alleged 
that which upholdeth the church, even the verity, the 
word of God taught and believed, 7iot by the high priests 
which of long time had persecuted it, but by the prophets 
and other good simple men, which perchance icere counted 
for heretics of the church, which church was not tied to 
succession, but to the toord of God.^^f 

Bishop Jewel : — " The grace of God is promised to 
pious souls, and to those who fear God ; and is not affixed 
to bishops^ chairs, and [personal] succession. ^^ — iVpology. 
" For that ye tell so many fair tales about Peter's succes- 
sion, we demand of you wherein the pope succeedeth 
Peter ? You answer, he succeeded him in his chair ; as 

* Zanchii (confessio) Fidei, cap. 25, sec. 19. 

t Fox's Acts and Monuments^ vol. 3, p. 293, &c., fol. ed. 1641. 



ON APOSTOLlCx. SUCCESSION. 287 

if Peter had been some time installed in Rome, and had 
solemrdy sat all day with his triple crown, in his jjontifi' 
calihus, and in a chair of gold. And thus, having lost both 
RELIGION and DOCTRINE, yc think it sufiicient, at last, to 
hold by the chair, as if a soldier that had lost his sword, 
would play the man with his scabbard. But so Caiaphas 
succeeded Aaron ; so wicked Manasses succeeded David ; 
so 77ia7/ antichrist easily sit in Peter's chair."* 

Whitaker ; — After briefly noticing Bellarmine's refer- 
ence to the fathers, Irenseus, Tertullian, &c., he replies, 
" In the first place, I answ^er in general, that I might 
justly reject all these human testimonies, and require some 
clear testimony out of the Scriptures. For this is the con^ 
stant determination of all the catholic fathers, that nothing 
is to be received or approved in religion which does not 
rest on the testimony of Scripture, and which cannot be 
proved and established by the Scriptures. But the fathers 
did not use this argument of personal succession as a firm 
and solid argument of itself , but as a kind of illustration of 
their main argument : they did not employ it to win the 
battle, but by way of triumph after victory. For when 
they had, by solid and powerful arguments out of the 
Scriptures, conquered their enemies, and established their 
cause; then, by way of triumph, they brought forward the 
succession of bishops in this manner : the bishops hold 
this faith as they received it from the apostles ; therefore 
this is the catholic faith. This agument proves not that 
the succession of persons alone is conclusive, or sufficient 
of itself; but only that it avails when they had first proved 
(from the Scriptuij^es) that the faith they preached was the 
same faith w^hich the apostles had preached before them. 
Faith, therefore, is as it were, the soul of the succession ; 
which faith being wanting, the naked succession of persons 
is like a dead carcase loithout the soul.^^j 

Field : — " Thus still we see that truth of doctrine is a 
necessary note whereby the church must be known and 
discerned, and not ministry or succession, or any thing 
else, without it."| 

White : — The Jesuit objects that " The Protestant 

* Defence of Apology, p. 634, ed. 1609. 

t Whitakeri 0pp. vol. i, p. 506, fol. ed. Genev. 1610. 

t Field on the Church, book ii, chap. vi. 



288 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

church is not apostolic, because they cannot derive their 
pedigree lineally without interruption from the apostles, as 
the Roman church can from St. Peter, but are enforced to 
acknowledge some other, as Calvin, or Luther, or some 
such," &c. Query — ^have not Dr. Hook, Mr. Palmer, 
&c., stolen their objections to the churches of the Re- 
formation from the Jesuits' school ? White says, " Our 
answer is, that the succession required to make a church 
apostolike, must be defined by the doctrine and not by the 
place or persons. — Wheresoever the true faith contained in the 
Scriptures is professed and embraced, there is the whole and 
full nature of an apostolike church. — For the external 

SUCCESSION WE CARE NOT."* 

Francis White, bishop of Ely : — " The true visible 
church is named apostolical, not because of local and per- 
sonal succession of bishops, (only or principally,) but 
because it retaineth the faith and doctrine of the apostles. 
Personal or local succession only, and in itself, maketh 
not the church apostolical, because hirelings and wolves 
may lineally succeed lawful and orthodox pastors : Acts 
XX, 29, 30. Even as sickness succeedeth health, and dark- 
ness light, and a tempest fair iceather, as Gregory Nazianzen 
affirmeth."t 

Stillingfleet : — " Come we, therefore, to Rome ; and 
here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself. Then 
let succession know its place, and learn to vaile bonnet to 
the Scriptures. The succession so much pleaded by the 
writers of the primitive church, was not a succession of 
persons in apostolical power, hut a succession in apostoli- 
cal DOCTRINE."! 

Bishop Hall : — " First, we may not either have or 
expect now in the church, that ministry which Christ set : 
where are our apostles, prophets, evangelists ? If we must 
always look for the very same administration of the church 
which our Saviour left, why do we not acknowledge these 
extraordinary functions 1 Do we not rather think, since it 
pleased him to begin with those offices which should not 
continue, that herein he purposely intended to teach us, 
that if we have the same heavenly business done, we should 

* White's Way to the True Church, sec. 52, ed. 1613. 

t Bishop White's Works, p. 64, fol. ed. 1624. 

% Stillingfleet's Irenicum, pp. 297, 303, 322, edit. 1662 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 289 

not be curious in the circumstances of the persons ? But 
for those ordinary callings of pastors and doctors, (intended 
to perpetuitie) with what forehead can he deny them to be 
in our church ? How many have we that conscionably 
teach and feed, or rather feed by teaching? Call them 
what you 'please. Superintendents^ (that is,) bishops, pre- 
lates, priests, lecturers, parsons, vicars, &c. If they 
PREACH Christ truly, upon true inward abilities, upon a 
sufficient [if not perfect] outward vocation : such a one 
[all histories witness] for the substance, as hath been ever 
in the church since the apostles' times, they are pastors 
and doctors allowed by Christ. We stand not upon circum" 
stances and appendances of the fashions of ordination, 
manner of choice, attire, titles^ maintenance : hut if for 
substance these be not true pastors and doctors, Christ had 
NEVER any in his church since the apostles left the earthP* 
Again, speaking of the reformed churches and their 
government and ministers, Calvin, Beza, &c., and of the 
Church of England, he says to his opponent, " Why, like 
a true make-bate, do you not say, that our churches have 
so renounced their o-overnment. These sisters" — the 
Church of England and the reformed churches — " hav)e 
learned to differ, and yet to love and reverence each other : 
and in these cases to enjoy their own forms loithout pre- 
scription of necessity or censure."! 

The Rev. J. Wesley ; — " I deny that the Romish bish- 
ops came down by uninterrupted succession from the 
apostles. I never could see it proved ; and I am persuaded 
I never shall. But unless this is proved, your own pas- 
tors, on your principles, are no pastors at all."J " The 
figment of the uninterrupted succession, he openly said 
' he knew to be a fable. ^ "§ 

Here is a glorious army of martyrs and confessors, 
venerable fathers and reformers, bearing testimony to 
the only essential succession, the succession of apostolical 
doctrine ! 

Truth and holiness, then, are the only infallible, essen- 
tial properties or signs of the church of God ; and the 
Scriptures are the only infallible rule of this truth and 

* Bishop Hall's Apology against Brownists, sec. 27. t Ibid. sec. 31. 

t Wesley's Works, vol. 3, p. 44, ed. 1829. 

^ Watson's Life of Wesley, p. 286, 12mo. 1831. 

13 



^90 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

holiness. God gives ministers to his church, as the means 
of leading men to the knowledge and belief of this truth, 
and to live accordingly ; but every man is required, at the 
peril of his soul, to believe, not in man, but in God ; not in 
ministers, but in the Scriptures. So saith St. Augustine : 
" Nunquam aliquis apostolorum dicer e auderet, qui credit in 
me. Credimus apostolo^ sed non credimus in apostolum. — 
No apostle ever dared to say ' He who believes in me.' 
We believe an apostle, but we do not believe in an 
apostle."* 

It follows, as a consequence, that as every man is to 
believe for himself, every man is to judge for himself. The 
Papists say that God has made the church the infallible 
guide in matters of faith. God never said so. Let no 
man deceive himself. But the position is a sophism from 
beginning to end: it takes for granted what ought to be 
proved. It takes for granted that ministers, bishops, and 
priests, are the church. This is contrary to the Scriptures. 
When our Lord said to Peter, " On this rock will I build 
my church^^ the Papists say, that he meant he would build 
his church upon Peter and his successors ; that is, upon 
the bishops of Rome, and the other bishops and priests 
under them. Build what, upon Peter and his successors ? 
Why, if bishops and priests are the church, that he would 
build bishops and priests upon bishops and priests ! Peter 
upon Peter ! that he would huild a thing upon itself! This 
is hardly equalled by the poor South Sea islanders, build- 
ing the world upon a turtle, and the turtle upon nothing ! 
Our Lord's meaning was, that his church, his faithful peo- 
ple, should be founded upon the truth of his being the 
Messiah, the Son of the living God. When the apostle 
addresses the presbyters or bishops of Ephesus — " Take 
heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over 
the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed 
the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own 
blood," Acts XX, 28, he clearly makes the " church of God" 
to mean "the^ocA," as distinguished from the shepherds ; 
that is, the people as distinguished from the ministers. 
It is true, indeed, that ministers are a part of the church 
generally ; but to say that they are the church, and upon 

* Augustini 0pp. v, 9, Tract 54, in Evang. Joan. p. 133, ed. Ludg. 
1664. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 291 

this partial statement to found a most awfully important 
claim, the claim of infallibility and lordship over the faith 
of all the people of God, is a daring, false, and impious 
position ! — Such is the foundation of popery. But 
they say, the right oi private judgment runs into sects and 
heresies, and they make a mighty parade about this. Per- 
haps many of them do not understand what they say. 
This is their best excuse. If they mean to say that the 
Protestant churches have, as to the succession of faith, as 
taught by the apostles, gone into sects and heresies, let 
them show a single true Protestant society that does not 
hold and teach what the apostles held and taught. As 
they boast of the fathers, let them produce a single creed 
from any of the fathers, for the first three hundred years, 
that is not believed by every true Protestant church. Now 
if they cannot do this, where is the honesty of talking 
about sects and heresies arising from private judgment? 
But we turn the tables upon the Papists : they have added 
many articles to the creed which the apostles never 
taught : they have corrupted the truth of God and pervert- 
ed the gospel. They have brought heresies and idolatry 
into the church by wholesale. No Popish priest under 
heaven can prove the Popish creed of Pope Pius IV. (the 
universal creed of the Popish Church) from the Scriptures, 
nor from the fathers of the first ihiee hundred years. 
They have lost the succession of faith. That church is in 
a state oi heresy and idolatry : it is an apostate church ! 
The priesthood of Papists and high Churchmen may be 
an imitation of Judaism or Paganism, or it may be a com- 
pound of both ; but it is not, as a priesthood, the Christian 
ministry ; and no man in it is a gospel minister at all, any 
further than he is such according to the above principles 
of Protestantism. The priesthood of Papists and high 
Churchmen professedly and essentially depends upon an 
uninterrupted succession of bishops, to be traced in an 
unbroken series from Peter to the present day ; and upon 
the authority of episcopal consecrations, or ordinations as 
episcopal. Now no such uninterrupted succession exists. 
Episcopal consecration or ordination, as such, that is, as 
distinct from the power of their order as presbyters, is a 
mere ceremony ; it has no scriptural validity whatever. 
Both Popery and high Churchism erect in the priesthood a 



292 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

system of spiritual tyranny over the whole church of God. 
The succession here is, as Gregory Nazianzen describes 
it, " the succession of sickness to heaUh ; light succeed- 
ing to darkness ; a storm to a cahn ; and spiritual derange- 
ment to the spirit of health, and of love, and of a sound 
mind." Or, as Bishop Jev^el states it, " it is like Caiaphas 
succeeding to Aaron ; Manasses succeeding to David ; or 
antichrist sitting in Peter's chair." 

The Protestant churches are one in their rule of faith. 
Chillingworth's immortal words shall be here inserted : 
** Know then, sir, that when I say the religion of Protest- 
ants is in prudence to be preferred before yours, as, on the 
one side, I do not understand by your religion the doctrine of 
Bellarmine, or Baronius, or any other private man among 
you, nor the doctrine of the Sorbon, or of the Jesuits, or of 
the Dominicans, or of any other particular company 
among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to 
agree, the doctrine of the Council of Trent : so accord- 
ingly, on the other side, by the religion of Protestants, I 
do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or 
Melancthon ; nor the confession of Augusta, or Geneva; 
nor the Catechism of Heidleberg; nor the Articles of the 
Church of England; no, nor the harmony of Protestant 
confessions ; but that wherein they all agree, and which 
they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect 
rule of their faith and actions, that is, the Bible. The 
Bible, I say, the Bible only is the religion of Protestants ! 
Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, 
irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they 
hold it as a matter of opinion : but as matter of faith and 
religion, neither can they with coherence to their own 
grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it 
of others, without most high and most schismatical pre- 
sumption. I, for my part, after a long and (as I verily be- 
lieve and hope) impartial search of the true way to eternal 
happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any rest 
for the sole of my foot, but upon this Rock only. I see 
plainly, and with mine own eyes, that there are popes 
against popes , councils against councils, some fathers 
against others, the same fathers against themselves, a con^ 
sent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of 
another age, the church of one age against the church of 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 293 

another age. Traditive interpretations of Scripture are 
pretended, but there are few or none to be found : no tra- 
dition but only of Scripture, can derive itself from the foun- 
tain ; but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought 
in, in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it 
was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty 
but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build 
upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to 
believe : this I will profess ; according to this I will live ; 
and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, 
but even gladly, lose my life, though I should be sorry that 
Christians should take it from me. Propose me any 
thing out of this book, and require whether I believe it or 
no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human rea- 
son, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no 
demonstration can be stronger than 'this, — God hath said 
so, therefore it is true. In other things, I will take no 
man'sliberty of judgment from him ; neither shall any man 
take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, 
nor the worse Christian ; I will love no man the less for 
differing in opinion from me. And what measure I mete 
to others I expect from them again. I am fully assured 
that God does not, and therefore that men ought not, to 
require any more of any man than this, to believe the 
Scriptures to be God's word, to endeavour to find the true 
sense of it, and to live according to it."* 

The true Protestant churches, then, have the true suc- 
cession, the succession of the faith of the apostles, the doc- 
trine of truth as taught by the apostles. This is in the 
Bible, and in the Bible alone. All held besides this, as 
articles of faith, or as divinely binding in obedience, is a 
CORRUPTION of Christianity. 

Let the Protestant churches remember their high privi- 
leges : let them bless God for them, and endeavour to the 
utmost to keep their trust pure and undefiled. Let the 

PEOPLE HONOR THEIR MINISTERS AS AMBASSADORS FOR 

Christ. The great aim of Papists and Semi-Papists is to 
lead the people to despise their ministers. Why do 
they do this ? Why ? that they may make a prey of the 
people. Do they offer io feed them as pastors ? — it will be 
with the husks of tradition. Do they claim to govern 

^ The Religion of Protestants, c. 6, sec, 56. 



294 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

them ? — it will be as lords over God's heritage. Do they 
offer them liberty ? — it is that they may lead them to bon- 
dage. God has made the Protestant churches free ; may 
they stand fast in their liberty, and never be entangled 
again v^ith the yoke of bondage ! 

God has always had a church, a spiritual people ; he 
always will have a spiritual people, a true church. This 
church is a holy church : no body of people, as distinguish- 
ed by human arrangements, is so. Ungodly people are 
found among all denominations ; most particularly among 
Papists and high Churchmen. 

The church of God is a catholic church, consisting of 
all the true worshippers of God everywhere : no denomina- 
tion of Christians ever was catholic, that is, universal. 
The expression, Roinan Catholic, is a solecism — is non- 
sense — is absurd ! It is as much as to say, a particular 

UNIVERSAL, that A PART IS THE WHOLE, that A CITY IS 
THE WORLD ! ! 

The true Catholic church is the same in all ages, as 
well as in all places. It is made up of patriarchs and 
prophets, martyrs and confessors, and true believers : " I 
say unto you, that many shall come from the east and 
west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and 
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven," Matt, viii, 11. " iVfter 
this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man 
could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, 
and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, 
clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands ; and 
cried with a loud voice, saying. Salvation to our God 
which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb," Rev. 
vii, 9, 10. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 295 



CONCLUSION. 



The argument of this Essay is now finished ; and the 
high Church scheme of an order of bishops, hy divine 
right, "distinct from and superior to presbyters ; possessing 
prerogatives incompatible with presbyters ; having the 
rights and authority of apostles ; which order of bishops 
is to be traced by a personal succession, through an un- 
"broken line from Peter to the present bishops of England ; 
and whose ordinations are so essential to the validity of a 
true gospel ministry, that without them all preaching and 
ordinances are "vain," and without the ^^ promise of Christ :^^ 
this scheme has been examined in its fundamental posi- 
tions, and has been shown to be a baseless fabric, cal- 
culated only to destroy the peace of the church, and to 
promote pride, bigotry, exclusiveness, intolerance, and 
persecution ; in one word, to destroy Protestantism, 
AND TO promote Popery. It has been proved, on the 
other hand, with all the evidence of a catholic or universal 
doctrine of the Christian church, that bishops and presby- 
ters are, by divine right, one and the same. Presbyters 
have been shown by the Scriptures, the only and sufficient 
authority in such matters, to have, by divine right, 
EQUAL power and authority with any bishops to perform 
all the acts of the Christian ministry ; instancing, espe- 
cially, that of ordaining ministers. Presbyters are equally 
as much successors of the apostles as bishops are. The 
only essential succession is the succession of faith. All 
churches are apostolical or not, in proportion as they ap- 
proach to, or recede from, the doctrine of the apostles. An 
unbroken line oi personal descent oi spiritual power to ordain 
in the English bishops, is a fable. No man ever did, or 
ever can prove it. In addition to all this, we have shown, 
that when examined by the Scriptures, and the doctrine 
of the reformers, the Popish ordinations of the English 
bishops, before and at the Reformation, were, from the 
monstrous wickedness, heresy, and simony of the persons 
concerned, null and void to all intents and purposes. 



296 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

The validity of the ordination of the ministers of the 
Church of England, as well as that of the ministers of all 
other churches, must be judged, therefore, according to the 
Scriptural rule of the succession of doctrine ; the qualifica- 
tio?is of the men in personal piety, ability to teach, minis- 
terial grace, the call of God, and their appointment to the 
work in a manner suitable to the Scriptures. 

A few brief observations, as corollaries, may be added. 

Ministers are God's gifts, and God's stewards in the 
church : — 

The Scriptures regularly speak in this style : — The 
Lord sends the labourers into his vineyard. Matt, ix, 28. 
The Lord appoints ministers as the stewards of his house- 
hold, to give them their portion of meat in due season. 
Matt, xii, 42. Jesus, as the chief Shepherd, brings in by 
himself, as the door, all true shepherds. When he ascended 
up on high, he gave to the church pastors, &c. Ephes. iv, 
11, 12. They are to rule by His word and will. Their 
office, we have shown, is a limited office : they are ser- 
vants, not masters, nor lords over the heritage. None but 
such as these can be true ministers of the gospel. God 

QUALIFIES THEM, MOVES THEM, AND SENDS THEM. Where 

no church is formed, they gather one. Where churches 
are formed, he moves and directs his church, if attentive 
to his will, to receive all he sends. 

Every minister of the gospel must be a real Christian, 
not a wicked man ; a man of some natural ability, not a 
fool ; endowed with knowledge of the gospej, not a novice ; 
able to teach and to convince gainsayers. Besides all 
this, he must have a special gift of the Holy Ghost for the 
work. Rom. xii, 6 ; 1 Cor. xii, 4-7 ; Ephes. iv, 7, &c. 
Every such man has a divine commission in general to 
preach the gospel : but he has no authority in any par- 
ticular church, as a pastor or governor over that church. 
To constitute him a regular pastor in a particular church, 
he must be solemnly received as such by the regular au- 
thority of that church. The mode of constituting a minis- 
ter in a particular church may vary according to circum- 
stances. If it be in a state of persecution, or reformation, 
the full reception of his ministry establishes him as the 
minister of that church : if it be in a settled state, he must 
be constituted or instituted a minister according to the 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 297 

usages of that church. Scripture, and all antiquity, and 
the generality of the reformed churches, show this should 
be done by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 
that is, of those ministers appointed for their wisdom, 
gravity, and experience to such office in the church. 
Only it should be kept in mind, that this form, though 
authorized by such high examples, is never commanded. 
It is becoming and proper, but not essential. It is pretty 
clear that the early ordinations were sometimes performed 
by the lifting up of the hands of those who ordained.* So 
the word x^tporoi^ecj, used in the ordaining of elders or 
presbyters in all the churches by Paul and Barnabas, 
properly means. Acts xiv, 23. Any act, indeed, by the 
authority of the church, setting men apart to this office, is 
ordination. This public authorized act is all that belongs 
to the essence of ordination ; all besides is accident or cir- 
cumstance. All ministers are equal, by divine right, 
in every thing that belongs to the being or well-being of 
the church. The church may arrange for one or more to 
perform, for the sake of order, any particular duty, so that 
no attempt is made to claim for such acts or arrangements 
■more than human authority. The moment this is done, 
such a claim makes loai^ on the rights of other 7ninisters, 
and on the peace of the church. 

The EFFICACY of a gospel ministry depends, as to God, 
upon the authority and power of the loord of God, and upon 
the operations of the Spirit of God ; and, as to man, upon 
the faith and obedience of the hearers. The mere preach- 

* I am aware that attempts have been made to refute this, by saying 
that the word ;(;eiporo2^£'w means to institute a person in some office. 
Very true. So balloting or voting frequently does the same. But this 
is only 'part of the truth. Expressions of this kind frequently declare 
the ??ifln7zer of doing this, as well as the thing itself; so voting by a 
show of hands expre^^ses the manner, as well as the thing. The Greeks, 
from whom the word is taken, frequently instituted individuals in office 
by a show of hands. The text in Acts xiv, 23, uses the very word ap- 
plied to the institution of an individual in office among the Greeks, hy 
a show of hands. Among them, therefore, it signified to ordain or ap- 
point to office by a show of hands. The sacred writer says that Paul 
and Barnabas thus instituted, that is, ordained, presbyters in every 
church ; they ordained them, therefore, by lifting up their hands in 
solemn attestation that they so instituted them as ministers of the 
word. Such seems to be the legitimate conclusion both from the 
language, and from the custmns of the Greeks. 

13* 



298 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

ing and administering of sacraments, as the act of the 
MINISTER, has ill itself no saving efficacy. The opus 
operatum, or the doctrine of Papists and high Churchmen, 
that the mere outward performance oi the offices and ordi- 
nances of reHgion necessarily produces inward religion, 
is PRIESTCRAFT, and destroys many of the souls of the 
people. The blind lead the blind, and both fall into the 
ditch. This abuse of the ministry of the gospel is no 
argument against its use and importance. The gospel 
ministry is God's ordinance. It is a highly important 
ordinance ; and, when properly performed, is highly use- 
ful. Is it not vastly important to know, that God has sent 
to us ambassadors of peace ; though the authority, and 
power, and efficacy of this embassy are really all divine ? 
Is it not highly useful to find, that, as to those who believe 
and obey that embassy, God will receive them by it into 
pardon and peace; to holiness and heaven? " Who then 
is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye 
believe, even as the Lord gave to every man ? I have 
planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he 
that w^atereth ; but God that giveth the increase," 1 Cor. 
iii, 5-7. 

The CHURCH OF God is the temple, the house of God : — 
This church is to be considered as universal or particu- 
lar ; the church universal includes all upon earth who are 
united to Christ by living faith ; and all who are united to 
Christ by living faith belong to this church. It includes 
all particular churches that hold the faith of Christ. 

Thus spake the English reformers in their definition of 
the holy catholic or universal church : — " It comprehends 
all assemblies of men over the whole world that receive 
the faith of Christ ; who ought to hold a unity of love 
and brotherly agreement together, by which they be- 
come members of the catholic church."* A particular 
church is a church distinguished outwardly by some pecu- 
liar views in doctrine or modes of worship, government, or 
discipline, from other churches. Each particular church 
has equal rights and privileges with any other church. 
None have a right to interfere with the just liberties of 
other churches. Civil or national establishments may 
* Burnet's History of the Reformation, book iii, anno 1540. 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 299 

have peculiar emoluments, but they can have no divine 
authority to restrain the peaceable exercise of spiritual 
duties in other churches. When they do, they become 
antichristian. 

Church government : — 

By this is meant the system of ecclesiastical arrange- 
ment and discipline of some particular church. This 
church orovernment must be distino^uished into what is 
general, and what is particular; the principle, and the 
application in detail of that principle. The New Testa- 
ment lays down general principles, but gives no parti- 
cular FORM of church government in detail. All church 
government is Scriptural that abides by the general prin- 
ciples of the New Testament, however it may vary in 
detail. All church government is unscriptural that vio- 
lates any of the general principles laid down in Scripture, 
no matter what may be their form in detail. The follow- 
ing are general Scriptural principles : — 

As to the relations between ministers and people : — 
ministers are to feed and rule the people according to the 
word of God : the people are to submit to such a ministry, 
to honour and support such ministers. This is clear from 
the following passages : — Matt, xxiv, 45 ; Luke x, 7; Acts 
XX, 28 ; 1 Cor. ix, 7-14 ; Gal. vi, 6-8 ; 1 Tim. iii, 4, 5 ; 
Heb. xiii, 17. Any limitation of this power in ministers, 
by the exercise of lay influence, is Scriptural, so long as 
it leaves the minister in possession of that authority by 
which he can regularly, when needful, exercise the power 
of governing, as well as of feeding, the flock. All beyond 
this is unscriptural. The people ruling the minister, is 
the SHEEP RULING the shepherd! It is absurd, as well as 
unscriptural. It will always lead to the corruption of the 
truth in a man-pleasing ministry. It is as inimical to holi- 
ness of life, as it is to truth of doctrine : discipline Avill be 
relaxed, the hedge of the Lord's vineyard will be broken 
down, and the wild boar of the wilderness will spoil the 
vine. When ministers are, in themselves, or in their mi- 
nistry and government, clearly contrary to the Scriptures, 
they lose their authority, and the obligation of the people 
to obey them ceases. See section iv of this Essay. 

As to ministers with ministers : they are all, by divine 
right, equal. They are all to aim at edification, order, 



300 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and efficiency. Gifts differ. Some men have talents for 
government, some for evangelists, some for pastors. It is 
consonant to the gifts of the Holy Ghost that the church 
should arrange for each man to occupy that place for which 
he is most qualified, and which will most promote the 
order and edification of the church. Any such arrange- 
ment is warranted by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, by 
reasons of order and edification, and by the judgment of 
the greatest and best men of all ages. All these human 
arrangements must be subordinate to, and in accordance 
with, the great principle, that all ministers are, by divine 
right, equal. The moment they violate this principle, they 
become unscriptural. They set up human authority above 
the word of God — all other ministers are degraded — war 
is made upon the peace of the church — antichrist begins 
to reign. 

As this is a point of so great importance, a little enlarge- 
ment will be in strict accordance with the desion of this 
Essay : — 

Scriptural episcopacy is, strictly, the feeding and 
governing of the flock ; and has nothing to do with govern- 
ing ministers. Every true minister is a Scriptural bishop. 
See section v. 

Scriptural church polity, as appears by the gifts 
of the Holy Ghost, by the example of the apostles, by the 
duty of doing all to edification, allows of, and countenances, 
such prudential arrangements among the ministers, as that 
some should have more eminently the office of governing 
in the church, presiding in the councils of ministers, &c. ; 
and that others should more particularly labour as evange- 
lists, as pastors, as doctors or teachers ; others as apostles 
or missionaries. This arrangement must never interfere 
with the principle that the act of every true minister in 
preaching, baptizing, administering the Lord's supper, and 
ordaining to the ministry, or governing the church, is, by 
divine right, equal to that of any other minister. A super- 
intendency thus restricted and guarded is not antiscrip- 
tural : it violates no law laid down there : it is recom- 
mended by the distribution of the gifts of the Holy Ghost : 
no ecclesiastical tyranny can be exercised by it : it pro- 
motes order, union, strength, and the edification of the 
v/hole. Call it episcopacy^ if you please : the name is not 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 301 

very important, only define the thing. I think the term 
episcopacy is not to be commended, because by episcopus, 
or bishop, the Scriptures never mean a superintendent of 
ministers, but only oi \\\e jlock ; and because the use of the 
word in ecclesiastical writers has become ambiguous ; and 
will, therefore, always leave room for cavilling, and pre- 
tences to ecclesiastical tyranny. It is against the strictest 
rules of right reason designedly to put an ambiguous word 
into a definition ; the man that does it is a promoter of 
confusion, and not of peace. 

Episcopacy in the Church of England, viewed as the 
reformers viewed it, was, in other words, a superintend- 
ENCY of no more than human authority, designed for the 
order, edification, and good government of the church, 
established on the principle that all ministers, by divine 
right, are equal. All her ministers, who are qualified by 
piety, talents, and divine knowledge ; by the special gifts 
of the Holy Ghost moving them to the work of the minis- 
try ; and who are solemnly set apart to it according to the 
usages of that church, are true ministers of Christ. But 
every wicked man, in this or in any other church, every 
unconverted man, however set apart, is a Vv^olf, is a hire- 
ling, a thief and a robber in the church. Let him repent, 
and give himself to God. Then, if he finds himself quali- 
fied by piety, and gifts, and moved by the Holy Ghost, and 
if the church be willing still to receiv^e him, he will be a 
true minister. But the attempts to claim authority for 
bishops, as an order by divine right, on the high Church 
succession scheme, either in that church, or out of that 
church, is to declare war against the divine right of all 
true ministers, and against the peace and security of every 
Christian church. The adv^ocates of these claims are the 
SCHISMATICS, or causers of division. They should be 
marked and shunned by every friend to the peace of the 
church. The man v/ho aids them, or who wishes them 
God speed, becomes a partaker of their sin, and an enemy 
to the peace of the church. 

Antichrist came into the church by an unguarded use 
of ministerial superintendency. " The common appella- 
tion of bishops,*' says Beza, " was that of minister, until, 
for the sake of government, one minister was placed over 
the others, and began to be distinguished by the name of 



302 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

bishop. Justin Martyr calls him the president. It was 
from this that the devil began to place the first foundation 
of tyranny in the church, bringing in the notion that the 
WHOLE GOVERNMENT of the church was, together with the 
name, given into the hands of one person. The scheme 
went on from the bishop [of a diocess] to the metropolitan 
[of a province] — from metropolitans to patriarchs." Lastly, 
the pope claims to be universal bishop, the lord over 
the whole church, and to sit as God in the temple of God ! 
This is the very character and image of antichrist. " Let 
no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not 
come, except there come a falling away first, and that man 
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth 
and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that 
is worshipped ; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of 
God, showing himself that he is God," 2 Thess. ii, 3, 4. 

All attempts to make ministers lords over God's herit- 
age is treason to the peace of the church, and leads to 
antichrist. Episcopacy, by divine right, is such an attempt. 
It is antiscriptural, intolerant, and antichristian. It sets 
up, as we have before said, Anglican Popery with many 
heads, in the place of Roman Popery with one head. 
Both have the same mind, the mind of the beast ; and 
both make war on the church of God. Both also spread 
out this spiritual tyranny through the ivhole priesthood, by 
pretences to a peculiar priestly power to effect wonders 
merely by their official acts. They can change the bread 
and wine into the body and blood of Christ ; they can ab- 
solve sinners by their ministerial authority ; they can seal 
saints, &c., though as wicked as Satan themselves. They 
have the lieys of heaven and hell. They can depose kings, 
can curse or give away kingdoms. They can be very Fro- 
tenses, can become gods or devils as they choose. These 
things are literally true, as to Roman Popery. As to An- 
glican Popery, we can only judge the child by its parent. 
As a child, it has had its deeds of darkness and horror, 
its jive mile acts, conventicle acts, Bartholomew days, d^c. 
Heaven forbid its maturity ! 

All the other Protestant churches in Europe, with some 
trifling exceptions, have laid aside the episcopal mode of 
church government : they are governed by presbyters. 
Presbyters ordain, and perform all the offices and duties of 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 303 

the Christian ministry. These presbyters are all Scrip- 
tural bishops, each having immediate oversight over the 
flock. In some churches, as in the Lutheran and the 
Wesleyan churches, a superintendency of one minister 
over other ministers, as well as over the people, is 
established. This is a mere prudential arrangement, and 
not of divine right. The model of all these churches is 
more Scriptural and apostolical than the episcopal form : 
the model of the episcopal government arose only from 
ecclesiastical authority. Episcopacy, by divine right, has 
neither the authority of Scripture, nor Christian antiquity ; 
it is a USURPATION of modern times. It is simply an 
attempt to establish a popedom of bishops, instead of his 
HOLINESS of Rome. 

Church and state : — 

The state is a civil government : the church is a spiritual 
'government. Kings and magistrates are the heads of the 
state : ministers of the gospel are, under Christ, the heads 
of the church. The jurisdiction of the state is only a civil 
jurisdiction : the jurisdiction of the church is only spiritual. 
The end of the state government is the peace and order of 
the state, with the security of the rights of persons and 
property to every member or subject of the state : the end 
of church government is the peace, order, and purity of the 
church, the edification of its members, and the conversion 
of sinners to God. Such are the nature, laics, and ends, of 
the church and the state, respectively. 

But what is to be said about the connection of church and 
state ? Every man, of course, has a right to form his own 
opinion ; and, while he obeys all the civil laws of the 
state, is loyal to the king or queen, as supreme civil magis- 
trate, and persecutes none for differing from him, no per- 
son has any right to hinder the peaceable expression of 
his opinion. The New Testament, I think, neither com- 
mands nor prohibits the matter. It is, therefore, in the 
abstract, not unscriptural ; neither is it necessary. If it 
takes place, it must, to be countenanced by true Christi- 
anity, be under such limitations as the nature, and laws, 
and end of each government, require. The state may 
supply pecuniary support to the church. This is plain 
from the nature of the thing. Any person may appropri- 
ate his money to the support of any thing that is lawful ; 



304 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the state is a collection of persons, and may do the same. 
To promote the support of gospel ministers is lawful; 
therefore the state may support gospel ministers. But 
then the state cannot, by divine authority, make laws for 
church government, simply as such ; because its power is 
ONLY civil : these laws are only spiritual. For the same 
reason, the state cannot, hy divine authority, either elect or 
appoint the ministers of the church, simply as gospel 
ministers, nor depose the same, any more than the church 
can appoint ministers of state, and depose the same. The 
pope has as much right to depose kings, as kings have to 
depose gospel ministers. The confounding of these things 
was the cause of the horrible wars between the popes and 
the German emperors. Opposition to any civil govern- 
ment, in the exercise of its own proper authority, under 
any pretence of religion, is ungodliness and rebellion ; and 
the civil sword ought to punish and repress it. There 
can be no peace to either church or state, but by each 
keeping distinctly within its own sphere. The state has 
a right to demand obedience to the civil laws, and loyalty 
to the king and constitution, from every subject of the 
realm. Protestantism teaches loyalty to all kings : Popery 
denies allegiance to all Protestant sovereigns, by the fourth 
Lateran council. No pretences about the good of the 
church should be suffered for one moment to interfere 
with this point. Where there is not true allegiance to the 
civil magistrate, there is no true claim to civil rights or 
privileges. But then, this allegiance being secured, with 
obedience to all the civil laws of the state, the authority 
of the state extends no further. Every man* as a 
peaceful and loyal subject, has a right to worship God 
according to the dictates of his own conscience. And 
every society of men, v/hile obedient to the ciAdl laws, and 
loyal to the state, have a right, so far as the state is con- 
cerned, to form regulations for their own worship and 
church discipline. If they choose to give up this right to 
the state, in whole or in part, then, so far as such a society 
is concerned, the state has a right to exercise it. But the 
good of both will be best secured by keeping them per- 
fectly distinct. The state may give its support to any 
peculiar form of faith ; but it has no divine right to inter- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 305 

fere, by force, with any other forms of faith or worship, so 
long as the individuals following those forms are loyal 
SUBJECTS to the civil government, and to the king as su- 
preme civil magistrate ; otherwise the state might lawfully 
establish heathenism,, or Mohammedanism, and persecute 
Christianity. Any particular section of the church may 
accept of this support from a civil government, so long as 
it is done consistently with the nature, laws, and end of 
that church, and of all other Christian churches. As to 
its own interests,— it should make its own spiritual or 
purely ecclesiastical laws ; elect and appoint its own min- 
isters, as ministers of the gospel ; and administer spiritual 
discipline over its ow^n members. To bring in the secular 
arm in any of these cases, is unchristian : it will also 
inevitably secularize and corrupt the church. A state 
CHURCH has no authority over other churches, be- 
cause of its pecuniary support from the state. The state 
can give it none. The state has no authority but civil 
authority. Civil authority has no jurisdiction over the 
conduct of individuals, except as a?;z7 members of the state. 
In fact, any particular state church is rather under obli- 
gation to the members of all other particular churches /or 
their part in the support of that church. The members of 
any particular church have a civil right to object in an 
orderly, constitutional, and peaceable manner, to the state 
support of another particular church. If the state church 
becomes proud and persecuting, because of its state 
SUPPORT, then, it would seem, that a serious Christian 
would be bound to withhold his influence from its support. 
If he thinks he ought to do more, he is justified, so that 
he does it peaceably, orderly, and constitutionally. If he 
thinks otherwise, he ought to act as a conscientious man. 
Let no man condemn him. 

^ Such are the principles taught in the word of God; 
such also are the principles advocated in this Essay; and 
such are their consequences. The church of the living 
God is a spiritual church : all true believers everywhere 
constitute this church. They are " one body, there is 
one Spirit, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is 
above and through all, and in allP The ministers of this 
church are all brethren. We are to call no man master 



306 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

upon earth, for one is our Master in heaven, the Lord Je- 
sus Christ. " Jesus said unto the apostles, Ye know that 
the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, 
and they that are great exercise authority upon them," that 
is, act as lords over them ; " but it shall not be so among 
you ; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be 
your minister r Matt, xx, 25, 26. " But unto every one of us 
is given grace according to the measure of Christ. Where- 
fore, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity cap- 
tive, and gave gifts unto men: and he gave some, apostles ; 
and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pas- 
tors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the 
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of 
Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of 
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, 
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." 
Ephesians iv, 7-13. 

Fellow Protestants, of every denomination, the writer 
would address you all as brethren. If he knows his own 
heart, he writes to promote unity among Protestants, 
as brethren. But this unity can only be established by 
putting aside all principles that exclude and 'persecute such as 
hold the Holy Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of 
FAITH and PRACTICE : such as, on the faith of the Scrip- 
tures, embrace the doctrine of the trinity ; the perfection 
and sufficiency of the atonement of Christ ; the divinity 
and sanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost ; justification 
by faith alone in that atonement ; sanctification through 
the operation of the Holy Ghost and living faith ; and 
Scriptural holiness as the fruits of this faith, and as the 
way to heaven. Wherever these are, uncorrupted by any 
paramount errors, Christ is there ; the church of God is 
there. The form of worship may differ ; but there is •' the 
way, the truth, and the life." Christianity does not 
depend on forms of church government, but on the truth 
as it is in Jesus. On this rock Christ builds his church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

Will you, on these principles, — the principles of the 
Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, — will 
you on these principles, give me, give every one that re- 
ceives them, the right hand of fellowship ? I trust you 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 307 

will. I most cordially do it to every one, whatever may 
be the denomination he may have among men, who thus 
receives the truth as it is in Jesus. To me, there is 
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, as 
to such, for we have all been baptized into one body, and 
have been all made to drink into one spirit. We are one 
and the same church — one and the same body of Christ. 
The little differences of doctrine, or modes of worship, that 
are found among such, do not affect the essentials of our 
Christianity. Genuine Protestantism is one ; one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all ; 
one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 
In this view of Protestantism as one, one body, the address 
of the apostle is beautiful — may the Holy Spirit write it 
on the heart of every Protestant! — "For as the body is 
one, and hath many members, and all the members of that 
one body, being many, are one body : so also is Christ. For 
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether 
we be Jew^s or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and 
have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body 
is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Be- 
cause I am not the hand, I am not of the body ; is it there- 
fore not of the body 1 And if the ear shall say. Because I 
am not the eye, I am not of the body ; is it therefore not of 
the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were 
the hearing ? If the whole were hearing, where were the 
smelling ? But now hath God set the members every one 
of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they 
were all one member, w^here were the body ? But now are 
they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot 
say unto the hand, I have no need of thee : nor again the 
head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more 
those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, 
are necessary : and those members of the body which we 
think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow^ more 
abundant honour ; and our uncomely parts have more 
abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need : 
but God hath tempered the body together, having given 
more abundant honour to that part which lacked : that 
there should be no schism in the body ; but that the 
members should have the same care, one for another. 



308 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer 
with it ; or one member be honoured, all the members re- 
joice with it." 1 Cor. xii, 12-26. 

Popery, brethren, according to all the venerable re- 
formers, whether in the valleys of the Alps, in Switzer- 
land, in Bohemia, in Germany, in France, or in Britain, — 
Popery is antichrist. It is an awful corruption of 
Christianity. It is spiritual whoredom ; the church for- 
saking her covenant with God, and playing the harlot with 
other gods and other lords. "So he carried me away in 
the Spirit into the wilderness : and I saw a woman sit 
upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, 
having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was 
arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold 
and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her 
hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication : 
and upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery^ 
Babylon the Great^ the mother of harlots and abominations 
of the earth. And I saw the woman drunken with the 
blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of 
Jesus : and when I saw her, I wondered with great admi- 
ration." Rev. xvii, 3-6. The Church of Rome has been 
drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of 
the martyrs of Jesus. 

PoPERy is UNCHANGEABLE. Popery is sworn hostility 
to Protestantism. Every Papist is taught this as an article 
of his creed. All out of the Church of Rome she holds 
as HERETICS : Protestants she holds as heretics. She curses 
them with the most dreadful curses. Every Papist so- 
lemnly says in his creed, " I do, in like manner, con- 
demn, REJECT, and CURSE THEM." And he concludes : 
" This true Catholic faith out of which no one can be saved, 
which I do now, of my own accord, profess and truly do 
hold, the same I will take care to retain whole and invio- 
late most constantly, so far as I am able, unto the latest 
breath of my life ; and, by the assistance of God^ I will take 
care that those who are subject to me,- or whose care in 
the place I am in shall belong to me, shall hold, teach, 
and preach the same also." 

" /, the same N., do ijromise, void, and swear this. So 
may God, and these holy Go.speIs of God, help me I 



;" 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 309 

Popery makes no difference in her denunciations against 
heretics, as in the Establishment, or as of other denomina- 
tions. She curses that Church and the king or the queen, 
di.^ fiercely as she curses the meanest subject of the realm. 
The pope thus cursed Queen Elizabeth as a heretic : 
" Moreover we do declare her to be deprived of her 
PRETENDED TITLE to the kingdom, and of all dominion^ 
dignity^ and 'privilege whatsoever. And also the nobility, 
subjects, and 'people of the said kingdom, and all others 
which have in any sort sworn unto her, to be for ever k^- 
SOLVED yro7?2 any such oath, and all manner of duty, of do- 
minion, ALLEGIANCE, and obedisnce ; as we also do by the 
authority of these presents, absolve them, and do deprive 
the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the kingdom, 
and all other things aforesaid ; and we do command and 
interdict all and every the noblemen, subjects, people, 
and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, 
or her ministers, mandates, and laws ; and those who 
shall do the contrary, we bind in the same sentence to be 
accursed. 

'' Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the In- 
carnation of our Lord 1570." — Bull of Pope Pitts V. 

This bull is given in *' perpetual memorial of the 
matter — that the bishop of Rome, as Peter's successor, has 
ALONE been made Prince over all people, and all king- 
doms, to PLUCK up, destroy, SCATTER, CONSUME, plant 

and build, that he may retain the faithful that are knit to- 
gether with the bond of charity, in the unity of the Spirit, 
and present them spotless and unblameable to their 
Saviour." 

These things show what Popery is, and what Protest' 
ants have to expect from Popery. 

What, then, is the wisdom of Protestants ? The watch- 
word of the enemy is, " Divide and conquer .^^ Let the motto 
of Protestants be, " The unity of the Spirit in the 
BOND OF peace." Let no Protestants set up exclusive, 
intolerant schemes against their fellow Protestants. He 
that does so is an enemy to Protestantism, and a friend to 
Popery. This Essay has been written to expose, refute, 
and put away a scheme of this kind, already sufficiently 
characterized. The author requests the co-operation of 



310 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

every true Protestant in this design. If there are any de- 
fects in the Essay, (and the author is far from considering 
it faultless,) let them be pointed out and corrected. If any 
can do better, he wishes them success. May the great 
Head of the church pour the Spirit out upon all pious 
MINISTERS, and upon all their congregations ; may 
he send faithful shepherds to his flock everywhere ; and 
may the kingdom of our God speedily come, and all the 
ends of the earth see his salvation ! Amen ! 



A CRITIQUE 

ON THE 

HON. AND REV. MR. PERCEVAL'S APOLOGY 

FOR THE 

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 



On Saturday, Sept. 21, 1839, the following announce 
ment appeared in the Leeds Intelligencer ;— " An Apology 
for the Doctrine of Apostolical Succession, with an Appen- 
dix on the English Orders, by the Honourable and Rev. A. 
P. Perceval, B. C. L., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. 
This work, as the preface states, has been written at the 
request of the vicar of Leeds, and with the assistance of 
several prelates and divines of the Church of England. 
It is a complete answer to a pamphlet lately published by 
a Mr. Powell." 

The Leeds Intelligencer is, in church matters, under the 
influence of Dr. Hook and his party. The above state- 
ment, therefore, seems to demand that the author of the 
Essay on Apostolical Succession should give his readers 
an account of this answer to his work. The writer of the 
notice of Mr. Perceval's Apology evidently felt himself in 
an awkward predicament. A Dissenting teacher, a Mr. 
Powell, had published something on apostolical succes- 
sion, a subject dear as life to every high Church priest. 
Of course Dr. Hook, the vicar of Leeds, a spiritual de- 
scendant of Pope Vitalian, Alexander III., Innocent III., 
Innocent IV., Nicholas III., &c., &c., knew his superiority 
too well to deign any notice of " a pamphlet, by a Mr. 
Powell." However, the public deigned to notice it ; and 
about two thousand copies were sold in little more than a 
twelvemonth. Many periodicals pronounced a high 
opinion on the work. Churchmen are convinced by it ; 



312 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and Dissenters feel confirmed in the superiority of their 
own ministry. 

Dr. Hook is not unconscious of these things. He, 
therefore, particularly requests his friend the Honourable 
and Reverend A. P. Perceval, brother chaplain to the 
queen, to prepare an antidote. This is undertaken : seve- 
ral prelates and divines assist in the work, and it is dedi- 
cated to the archbishop of Canterbury. " A pamphlet by 
a Mr. Powell" is greatly honoured by all this. However, 
this Mr. Powell is such a strange sort of creature that he 
feels no gratitude when no favour is intended ; and what 
he does not feel, he despises to affect. Yet certainly this 
" complete answer" to his work shall be examined. 

The Apology of Mr. Perceval presents one difficulty, 
which, I hope, few Dissenting productions exhibit. The 
difficulty is this ; Mr. Perceval generally answers his op- 
ponents by assertions, and not by proofs of their mistakes. 
But this is probably one of the advantages possessed by 
gentlemen of the succession, that they have authority to 
be believed without proofs ; and Dissenters have not. We 
have learned from d^very old Dissenter from these gentlemen, 
to " prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good." 

Dr. Hook proclaimed that the spiritual descent of " every 
bishop, priest, and deacon, was evident to every one who 
chose to investigate it." Now what is so evident to every 
one, must be capable of easy demonstration : but Mr. Per- 
ceval, in answer to the objection in the Essay, that there 
is " no sufficient historic evidence of a perpetual succes- 
sion of valid episcopal ordinations," says, " If nothing will 
satisfy men but actual demonstration," (sufficient historic 
evidence was the question,) " / yield at once^'' p. 79. 
This pamphlet has done something : the chosen champion 
of the succession scheme " yields at once''^ that there is no 
sufficient historic evidence to support it ! 

Still Mr. Perceval hugs the scheme, though he '' yields 
at once," that it has no sufficient historic evidence to sup- 
port it. He considers it to be " an article of this one faith, 
[of the Bible,] and to be the authority for that one haptism,^^ 
of the Bible, p. 62 : and justly concludes, that there is " a 
consequence springing from these premises z/* established : 
in respect, namely, of the paramount and exclusive claim 
upon the obedience of all • Christians within the British 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 313 

diocesses which belongs to the bishops of those diocesses," 
pp. 237, 238. And he has the courage to denounce the 
orders of all the Protestant churches of " Germany, Den- 
mark, France, Scotland, England, Ireland, and North 
America," (the Episcopal Church excepted in the latter,) 
^'pretended orders," and their power of ordination, a ''fan- 
cied power of ordination," pp. 54, 45. 

It is very amusing, too, to learn, that if Dissenting teach- 
ers dispute this, and tell such gentlemen as Mr. Perceval, 
that, to pronounce such a sentence of excommunication 
against all these churches, ivithoiit the clearest, strongest 
Scriptural proof, is semi-popish, bigoted, and intolerant, — 
then, Mr. Perceval says, this is persecuting the Church of 
England. Hear him at p. 62 : '' It is," says he, " I believe 
chiefly, if not wholly, on account of the exclusiveness of 
the doctrine that we who maintain it are exposed to ha- 
tred and reviling ; and if we may judge from the language 
of our revilers, shall have to endure persecution^ if it shall 
be in their power to inflict it. If we would be content to 
teach episcopacy as one among many schemes equally true 
or equally doubtful, it should seem, from their latest writ- 
ings, that we should not he disturbed; but because we 
teach it, as the Scriptures and the church have delivered 
it to us, exclusively^ therefore the loorld hateth us. Just 
so, if the early Christians could have been contented to 
profess their religion, as one of the six hundred tolerated 
by heathen Rome, and had been liberal enough, according 
to the modern abuse of the term, to regard all religion as 
pretty much alike, they would have had no need to endure 
the cross, the stake, or the teeth of wild beasts : but be- 
cause they taught their religion, as the Scriptures and the 
church had delivered it to them, exclusively, therefore the 
world hated them. While, therefore, the charge of exclu- 
siveness is an argument in our favour against whom it is 
brought, seeing that we bear it in common with the primi- 
tive martyrs ; it is an argument against those who bring it, 
seeing that they do so, in common with the very heathen." 
We have quoted the whole of this paragraph, for the pur- 
pose, among other things, of giving a specimen of Mr. Per- 
ceval's views, reasoning, and style. He is in a dreadful 
fright, it seems, lest " the world,^^ the heathenish dissenters, 
f hould call the successionists to martyrdom ! Good man ! 

14 



314 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

We will relieve him, by assuring him that the only perse- 
cution he has to fear from us, is one or other of the follow- 
ing tortures : either, first, To prove that the Scriptures 
teach this exclusive doctrine ; or, secondly. To withdraw 
his denunciations and excommunications of other Protest- 
ant churches ; or, thirdly. If he will continue them, witkovt 
Scriptural proofs to support them, then that he be published 
to the world as a semi-papist, a bigot, a persecutor, and a 
disturber of the peace of God's church. So far are we 
from persecution, that he bears witness to the contrary, by 
saying, that, if high Churchmen would be content that their 
scheme should be allowed " as one among many," we 
should NOT disturb them. Then it seems we only want to 
live and let live. Is this persecution ? But what shall be 
said of men who really and seriously maintain, that if they 
cannot reign alone, and extinguish all other churches, they 
are injured, reviled, about to be martyrs, and given to the 
teeth of wild beasts ! ! 

While noticing miscellaneous matters, it may not be im- 
proper to make a brief observation or two on a note at page 
25, in which he charges me with " denying that the apos- 
tles had any sole jurisdiction ;" and concludes it by observ- 
ing that they who " carp at the authority of bishops, pre- 
sently proceed to carp at that of the apostles, and will pro- 
bably not be deterred from carping at that of our Lord him- 
self." Now as to what he calls "denying that the apos- 
tles had any sole jurisdiction," my language, even as 
quoted by himself, is this : " There is no very clear evi- 
dence." And again, " I think we find no declared autho- 
rity solely belonging to them as apostles, to call any minis- 
ters to account, or to depose them." Is this " denying" the 
thing, by merely expressing a thought dubiously ? — or, by 
saying, if there be any evidence, it is not " very clear 
.evidence ?" '' One might have thought," says Mr. Perce- 
val, " that the sentence concerning certain false teachers 
' whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they might learn 
not to blaspheme,' 1 Tim. i, 20, had been proof sufiicient 
of such authority, and of the exercise of it." What Mr. 
Perceval might have thought, and what is " very clear evi- 
dence," may be different things. Now let us examine 
a little the only parallel case mentioned in the New 
Testament, agreeing to the statement made in the Essay, 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 315 

viz., in churches already planted, having ministers already 
appointed over them — the case is found 1 Cor. v. 1-13. 
In this case, though the church had neglected its duty, 
yet the apostle does not proceed to excommunicate, even 
this private member, on his own sole authority. He directs a 
church court to be formed, or called together. Pool, in 
his Synopsis, quotes Estius thus describing the composi- 
tion of this court : " The apostle directs the calling of a 
public assembly, that all understanding the greatness of 
the crime, might acknowledge the justice of the punish- 
ment. It does not follow, indeed, from this place, that the 
multitude have the power of excommunication, yet the 
multitude in some sense excommunicate, namely, by their 
approbation and suffrage in favour of the excommunication, 
and by avoiding the excommunicated person. The minis- 
ter performed the act of excommunication by the direc- 
tion of St. Paul." Thus, also, Calvin on the place : '' It 
is to be observed that St. Paul, though an apostle, did not 
proceed alone to excommunicate according to his own 
views and feelings, but he consulted with the church, that 
the thing might be done by the authority of all." Bishop 
Fell on the place, says, " The approbation and consent of 
the church was used in the apostles^ time in ecclesiastical 
censures." Erasmus, also, considers the matter was to 
be done in "a public assembly." The language of the 
chapter is decisive in proof of this. Here, then, v/e see it is 
not " very clear ^"^ that the apostle did this by his sole autho- 
rity; indeed, it is clear he did not. And if he did it not in 
the case of a private member^ much less, we presume, did 
he do it in the case of a minister. There is one more pas- 
sage which I leave for Mr. Perceval to make " very clear" 
as evidence that the apostle could at any time, on his sole 
authority, depose ministers : "I would they were cut off 
that trouble you," Gal. v, 12. If the apostle wished it, 
and could by his sole power do this, w^hy were they not cut 
off? See Dr. Barrow on the Supremacy of the Pope, 
supp. 5, sec. ii, p. 187, 4to. edit., 1680. 

Mr. Perceval's charitable supposition, that they " who 
carp at the authority of bishops, will probably not be de- 
terred from carping at that of our Lord himself," shall be 
illustrated by that of another Oxford Tract advocate. In a 
work styled *' The Oxford Tracts, the Public Press, and 



316 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

the Evangelical Party," by G. P. (G. Perceval ?) de Sane- 
ta Trinitate, the author says, " The evangelical party in 
the Church are only restrained from the accident of their 
position from the destructive power of Rationalistic and 
Socinian principles : the spirit is already there, only its 
full development is restrained." If such be their charity 
toward their brethren, what can a heathenish Dissenting 
teacher expect? 

Having made these miscellaneous remarks on things for 
which it seemed probable we should find no more conveni- 
ent place, we now proceed to a more regular examination 
of Mr. Perceval's Apology. 

He begins by laying it down as a fundamental position, 
that none are to minister in holy things, " in the name of 
God, without express warrant and commission from him, 
or from those whom he has impowered to grant such com- 
mission," p. 3. This we fully concede. But when he 
says " nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world" hold 
this to be by " episcopal succession^^ — that " none who 
have not received episcopal ordination are lawful minis- 
ters of the church, or warranted to perform any acts in the 
name and with the authority of God," pp. 4 and 5, we deny 
it. Even Mr. Perceval shall disprove it. At pp. 7 and 8, 
he says, the power of presbyters to confer orders ** equally 
with bishops" is both the " doctrine and practice of the 
Lutherans in Germany and Holland, the Presbyterians in 
England, Scotland, and Ireland, and North America ; and 
the Wesleyan Methodists." 

Mr. Perceval has the confidence to assert that the 
Church of England maintains his scheme, page 9 ; but he 
that reads the seventh section of the Essay will require 
something more than assertion on this subject. 

His first chapter he entitles " Congregationalism," and 
professes to examine the Scriptural evidence alleged to 
support it. 

He has amused himself with imputing to the Congrega- 
tionalists certain Scriptural precedents as " wr^-e^^ in behalf 
of Congregationalism," page 11. I believe Mr. Perceval 
is conscious that the Congregationalists have more sense 
than to "urge" any such things as he mentions " in behalf" 
of their scheme. He himself intends the introduction of 
several of these instances as a caricature of Congrega- 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 317 

tioiialism. But what honesty is there in such a misrepre- 
sentation of facts ? However, the instance of Jeroboam 
will find its best parallel in the conduct of Henry VHI. 
The case of the seven sons of Sceva (Acts x, 14) would 
rather belong to Mr. Perceval, as they were sons of " a 
chief of the priests." Probably, as being in the succession, 
they were mortified to see the heretic and schismatic Paul 
cast out devils, and supposed that surely they were the only 
divinely commissioned persons for such a work. He makes 
little out in the matter of Apollos ; of Aquila and Priscilla. 
They were, indeed, all lay persons ; Apollos was an emi- 
nent lay preacher of the gospel ; and Aquila and Priscilla 
were lay " fellow-helpers" of the apostles. Such proceed- 
ings now would shock our high priests. On the case of 
the man mentioned Luke ix, 50, Mr. Perceval assumes 
that he who opposes the succession scheme, opposes 
Christ. An easy way of answering difficulties, to beg the 
question ! But we have many gentlemen writers now-a- 
days : " dig they cannot ; and to beg," or confess the 
poverty of their information, " they are ashamed." 

His second chapter is on " Ecclesiastical authority for 
Congregationalism." It contains only three lines and a half. 
" From ecclesiastical antiquity," he says, " I am not aware 
that a single precedent is, or ever has been alleged in fa- 
vour of the Independent or Congregational scheme." This 
only proves how little Mr. Perceval knows about the sub- 
jects on which he writes. There is abundant evidence 
that primitive churches consisted of only one congregation 
each. It was against the rule of all antiquity for one 
bishop to have the government of more than one church 
or congregation. And that these bishops and their churches 
were considered to be, by divine right, each in their go- 
vernment independent of all other bishops and churches in 
the earliest times, is too evident to need any proof. It is 
maintained by Dr. Barrow on the Supremacy of the Pope, 
that " the ancients did assert to each bishop a free, abso- 
lute, independent authority, subjected to none, directed by 
none, accountable to none on earth, in the administra- 
tion of affairs properly concerning his church," Suppos. 5, 
sec. V, page 220, 4to. edit., 1680. Cyprian maintains it, 
as Dr. Barrow there shows : and see Vitringa de Syn. 
Vet., lib. 3, cap. 17, p. 857, &c. ; Mosheim de Reb. ante 



318 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Constant., page 152, and Burnet's Reformation, vol. ii, 
anno. 1559. 

Mr. Perceval entitles his third chapter " Presbyterian- 
ism." Pie first very properly takes up the Scriptural evi- 
dence, as this, and this alone, can decide the question. 
The first passage he selects is from Numbers xvi, as to 
" Korah and his company." This, indeed, is not original ; 
most high Churchmen exult in this example as death to 
presbyterianism. It is an old saying, that a man may make 
'• more haste than good speed. ^"^ The breathless haste v^ith 
which such writers appear to run to this passage for 
weapons against presbyterianism, that is, every thing but 
high Churchism, may possibly be the reason of their blind- 
ness when they arrive at it. The rebellion of " Korah 
and his company" is analogous, say these gentlemen, " to 
the rebellion of presbyters against bishops." — Indeed ! 
Now who were " Korah and his company?" Who ? — Who ? 
Yes, Mr. Perceval, were they priests or laymen ? What 
does this mean — " Seek ye the priesthood also ?" If they 
were priests, how could they seek the priesthood ? Dathan 
and Abiram were Reubenites, and could not be priests. 
They none of them loere priests at all ! Fie ! fie ! ye queen's 
chaplains and Oxford Tract-men, to trifle thus with the 
public mind ! But your violation of truth will return upon 
your own heads. The case is plain enough, it was the 
Levites and the people rebelling against the priests ; and 
not the priests against the high priest. 

Mr. Perceval has the same sort of egregious trifling 
about the false apostles mentioned 2 Cor. xi, 12 ; and 
about Diotrephes, page 23. He professes to bring these 
as Scripture grounds for presbyterianism. Of course he 
would insinuate that presbyterians urge them as such. 
However censurable this conduct may be in itself, yet 
possibly it may be excused in Mr. Perceval. Pie can be- 
lieve things without evidence : why should he not go a 
step further in his opinion of presbyterians, as he calls them, 
and persuade himself that they are foolish enough to sup- 
pose that an argument ixom false apostles and the ministers 
of Satan, will be good grounds for presbyterian ministers 
being true apostles and ministers of God ! ! He just refers 
to the angels of the Apocalypse. He does not, however, 
need to prove that these angels were prototypes of high 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 319 

Church bishops : his authority implying this is enough, and 
therefore he wisely spares all proof — proofs to some peo- 
ple are troublesome things. 

At page 26, the subject of the names of bishops and 
presbyters being used in common, is introduced. He 
acknowledges they were so " at the first, but have since 
been, by common usage, appropriated to distinct offices." 
Very well. Are we then to correct our Lord and his 
apostles by common usage since those times ? " But," 
says Mr. Perceval, " our Lord himself is sometimes desig- 
nated as an apostle, 1 Pet. ii, 25 ; sometimes as a deacon, 
Rom. XV, 8. The apostles are not only designated by that 
title, Luke vi, 13, but their office is called a deaconship, 
Acts i, 18, 25, and a bishopric, Acts i, 20, and they 
themselves frequently styled presbyters, 1 Peter v, 1 ; 2 
John i ; 3 John i ; and deacons, 1 Cor. iii, 5 ; 2 Cor. iii, 
6 ; and vi, 7. Again, the pastors at Ephesus whom St. 
Paul addresses are called indiscriminately bishops and 
presbyters. Acts xx, 17 and 28, and the same indiscrimi- 
nate use of terms is observable in St. Paul's First Epistle 
to Timothy and in that to Titus." All this we grant is 
true : but then are deacons as indiscriminately called 
Christ ? — are deacons as indiscriminately called apostles 
as presbyters are indiscriminately called bishops, and as 
bishops are indiscriminately called presbyters ? Mr. Per- 
ceval knows they are not. Then Avhat solemn trifling is 
all this ! The reader will see the subject further treated at 
pages 83-86 of the Essay. The names thus indiscrimi- 
nately common between bishops and presbyters, inevitably 
proves that their powers v/ere common, that they were one 
and the same office. 

The following is the best piece of reasoning in the 
whole book, and therefore we will give it respectful atten- 
tion. " But, say the presbyterians, in St. Paul's Epistle 
to the Philippians, he sends salutation to the bishops and 
deacons, Phil, i, 2, with no allusion to any other officer, 
therefore there were only these two instituted by the apos- 
tles, and any thing beyond this is of human origin. An- 
swer 1st. So do the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, and 
Ezekiel, uniformly designate the Jewish ministry as priests 
and Levites, with no allusion to any other office ; and a 
man might as well argue, that therefore, at that time, there 



320 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

was no superior office, no high priesthood among the Jews, 
as that there was no superior office, no chief episcopate, 
among the Christians when St. Paul wrote," pp. 27, 28. 
The reader is requested first to turn to pages 50, 51, 52, 
69, 70, and 80 of the Essay. Besides what is said in the 
above pages, especially the two points ; first, that in case 
of the pollution of the high priest, a common priest was 
appointed to officiate for him ; and, second, that all the 
ordination he had was necessarily by common priests ; we 
further remark, that the above argument is really a fallacy. 
The fallacy is found in putting a fart for the whole. We do 
not build our argument upon any one passage of the New 
Testament, but upon the whole: we say that there is no 
proof in the whole of the New Testament, not that there are 
no more than two orders of ministers of the gospel ; for, 
by the New Testament, deacons, as such, are not minis- 
ters of the gospel at all ; but we say, there is no proof in 
the whole of the New Testament of more than one stand- 
ing order of ministers of the gospel. To make the argu- 
ment about the high priest, therefore, a just one, it must 
be assumed that there is no allusion in the lohole of the 
Scriptures to any other office than that of priest in general. 
Let this be done, and we declare that, supposing the 
premises just, the conclusion would inevitably follow, that, 
by divine right, there was no really and essentially distinct 
office of the high priest above that of the priests in general. 
There is, however, frequent mention of the high priest in 
other parts of the Scriptures, though not by Isaiah, Jere- 
miah, and Ezekiel. 

What Mr. Perceval says about the prophets so uniformly 
neglecting, with very few exceptions, to make any men- 
tion of the high priest, as distinguished from the other 
priests, is well worth attention. The writer has no quarrel 
with episcopacy, simply as such, yet the following particu- 
lars are remarkable. None of the prophets excepting 
Zechariah, it seems, ever mention the high priest distinct- 
ly. How striking the difference between the sacred 
writers and episcopalian writers ! In the word of God, 
we have a series of inspired writers, addressing both 
church and state by the authority of God for centuries, and 
yet they never mention the high priest, but only as included 
among the priests and Levites ; while episcopalian writers, 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 321 

addressing the church and state, seldom mention presby- 
ters and deacons at all ; but bishops — bishops — bishops ! 
No episcopalian dare professedly claim a higher authority 
for bishops over presbyters than what they suppose the 
high priest had over the other priests ; yet, in very deed, 
they claim ten times a higher authority. Where the pro- 
phets mention the high priest once^ they mention bishops 
a thousand times. When the high priest was ceremonially 
incapable of duty, a common priest was considered capa- 
ble of performing it for him : a thing impossible for a pres- 
byter to do for a bishop, according to high Churchmen. 
The consecration of the high priest was always by ordinary 
priests^ or by Moses, who was no priest according to the 
law ; but the consecration of a bishop by presbyters, a thing 
which the reformers maintai7ied to be lawful by the word of 
God, our high Churchmen consider as destroying Chris- 
tianity itself ! Mr, Perceval says their system is accused 
of Judaizing ; but the reader will see, that, on these points, 
Judaism was mildness itself compared with such a system. 

His observation about Timothy's being admitted by the 
apostles to their own order, page 29, is completely refuted 
in sec. iii, sub-sec. 4, of the Essay : we refer therefore to 
that place, and pass on. 

Mr. Perceval tries to say something about the apostle 
Paul's address to the presbyters or bishops of the church 
of Ephesus, in Acts xx, 17, &c. His opinion is, that Ti- 
mothy was with Paul at the time ; that Paul " had already 
committed the superintendence of these very pastors to 
Timothy," and that having Timothy with him, Paul gave 
" this pastoral charge to the pastors at [of] Ephesus, be- 
cause their chief pastor Timothy" was with him on his 
journey, page 39. All this is mere conjecture, and evi- 
dently contrary to the scope of the whole address. These 
presbyters are charged to take heed to the flock over 
which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers or bishops : 
but, according to Mr. Perceval, this charge ought to have 
been given to Timothy ; and Paul should have taught 
these presbyters that Timothy was the bishop to whom the 
Holy Ghost had committed the government of the flock, 
and of themselves also ; and that they should take heed to 
be obedient to his lordship Timothy. But other absurdi- 
ties follow Mr. Perceval's interpretationt First, on this 

14* 



322 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

scheme, here are the bishops of Ephesus : this the 
sacred penman settles beyond dispute. Secondly, here is 
Timothy, a hishop of bishops, a thing utterly repugnant to 
the first ages of the church : so Cyprian and eighty-six 
other bishops in council declare, " Neque enim quisquam 
nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituat — Neither 
does any one among us constitute himself a hishop ofhish- 
ops.^^ They account it tyranny to attempt it. Thirdly, 
here is an apostle making another grad.e of ministers. 
Now high Churchmen contend only for three standing 
orders in the church, including apostles as one, and deacons 
as another. However, Mr. Perceval can multiply orders 
with a dash of his pen. Here, according to Mr. Perceval, 
would be, first, deacons ; second, presbyters, except he 
fully grants, which he does not, that bishops and presby- 
ters were one and the same office in the apostles' days ; 
third, bishops ; fourth, Timothy, a bishop of bishops ; and 
fifth, apostles. Five standing orders of ministers of the 
gospel ! 

The Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy, as pleaded by 
presbyterians, next come under Mr. Perceval's examina- 
tion. His first argument makes Timothy a bishop of 
bishops; the absurdities of which scheme have just been 
exhibited. 

As to the presbyters who ordained Timothy, all he has 
to say is, that commentators of the fourth and following 
centuries say they were bishops. We say so too ; be- 
cause presbyters and bishops were then one and the same. 
But suppose they were bishops of a high Church stamp, 
and that high Church bishops are their successors ; then it 
follows, that they are successors of Scripture bishops only, 
and not of the twelve apostles. But this conclusion his 
more initiated brethren would tremble to hear mentioned. 
However, Chrysostom, the principal commentator on 
whom he depends, says, on the very place, " the difference 
between the presbyter and the bishop is almost nothing." 
Admit the utmost, then, that they say, it will not do for Mr. 
Perceval's episcopacy. But we do not admit them as 
authority ; we admit nothing as such but the Scriptures ; 
and the Scriptures clearly show that they who ordained 
Timothy were preshyt€rs\ 

" Moreover,'* says Mr. Perceval, " in the Second Epistle, 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 323 

St. Paul ascribes Timothy's ordination to his own act, 2 
Tim. i, 6. The presbyterians [the author of the Essay 
he means] would represent this last passage to relate to 
-miraculous gifts ; but as there is nothing in the context to 
warrant such a supposition, but the contrary, it cannot be 
urged," pp. 33, 34. The passage is, " Stir up the gift of 
God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands." 
Now an English reader will perhaps be surprised to hear 
it said, that there is nothing relating to miraculous gifts in 
a passage the pith of which is, " Stir up the gift of God 
that is in thee." His surprise will be increased when he 
learns that the word " gift" in this passage is the ver}' word 
Xcipi(7fia, which the sacred writers use for miraculous gifts, 
in 1 Cor. xii, 4, 9, 28, 30, 31. The phrase, the " gift of 
God," neve?' means an office in the New Testament. The 
expression " stir up,^^ is never applied to an office, and 
seems incapable of such an application. Stir up thy 
bishopship, thy presbytership, &c., would be strange 
phraseology. All these objections would also apply to 
the interpretation which would suppose the gift to mean 
not Timothy's office, but his ordination. The phrase, " the 
gift of God," never means ordination in the New Testa- 
ment. To say, " Stir up thine ordination," is as absurd as 
to say, "Stir up thy bishopship." The passage, therefore, 
cannot m.ean, by the '^ gift of God," either Timothy's 
office, or his ordination. It evidently means spiritual gifts, 
gifts of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, it immediately 
follows — " For God hath not given unto us the spirit of 
fear : but of power, dvvaiieojc, and of love, and of a sound 
mind." The phrase, the " Spirit of power — nvevfjia 
dwafxeog,^^ most properly means the " power" of miracles ; 
as the word dvvafjitg, when referred to spiritual matters, 
mostly means miraculous power. Chrysostom thus inter- 
prets the phrase, " the gift of God," that is, says he, " the 
gift of the Holy Ghost which thou hast received, to qualify 
thee for superintending the church, for working miracles, 
and for the whole service of the church." We have shown 
in the Essay, page 55, that the gift of working miracles was 
conferred by the laying on of the apostles' hands, as a pre- 
rogative of their apostleship. Now are we to suppose that 
these gifts were conferred in this manner on so many 
inferior individuals, (as the Scriptures show they were,) 



324 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

and that so eminent an individual as Timothy should not 
be favoured with them ? This would be strange. I still 
think, therefore, that the peculiar force of the passage 
principally refers to this gift of God. That all other rich 
endowments of the Spirit for the ministry would accom- 
pany it, we need no more doubt than that others, who had 
these miraculous gifts, were also favoured with rich 
endowments of the Spirit for the personal performance of 
every Christian duty. Understanding the passage in this 
manner, the exhortation has great beauty and force : 
" Stir up the gift of God that is in thee by the laying on of 
my hands," — I, as an apostle, having been honoured as the 
instrument in conferring upon thee this " gift of God," these 
gifts of the Spirit, presume I may use some authority in 
exhorting thee to exert them to the uttermost in governing 
the flock, in miraculous operations, and in the whole ser- 
vice of the church. 

In his fourth chapter, Mr. Perceval proceeds to examine 
the arguments of presbyterianism from ecclesiastical an- 
tiquity. 

He first properly notices the testimony of Clemens Ro- 
manus. In answer to the argument from the fact that 
Clemens only mentions two orders, (suppose we count 
deacons an order,) viz., bishops and deacons, or presbyters 
and deacons, he refers to what he has said about the pro- 
phets only speaking of priests and Levites, with no mention 
of the high priest ; and we refer to the answer to what he 
has there said. But he finds it convenient to pass over the 
fact that Clement expressly says, that the sedition in the 
church was against the '' presbyters, ^^ sec. 47; that they 
were " presbyters" who had " the rule over them," sec. 
54 ; that he speaks of '' presbyters'''' as having finished 
THEIR episcopacy, sec. 44 ; and that in conclusion he ex- 
horts the church to " be subject to their presbyters," 
sec. 57. He never says half so much about bishops, 

Clemens, indeed, does occasionally use the word bishop, 
as synonymous with presbyter, for he never uses them to- 
gether and distinctly ; but all his authority and exhorta- 
tion are applied to bring the church to submit to the go- 
vernment of the presbyters. All these points Mr. Perceval 
forgets. However, like a drowning man, he catches at a 
straw. He says, " The unsoundness of the presbyterian 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 325 

inference," from Clemens in favour of presbyterianism, 
" is beyond redemption, when we find St. Clemens ex- 
pressly ascribing to divine appointment, obligatory in his 
time, the triple order of the ministry. These are his 
words : ' It will behoove us, looking into the depths of 
divine knowledge, to do all things in order whatsoever our 
Lord has commanded us to do. He has ordained, by his 
supreme will and authority, both where and by what persons 
they [the sacred services and oblations] are to be perform- 
ed. For the chief priest has his proper services ; and 
to the PRIESTS their proper place is appointed ; and to the 
Levites appertain their proper ministries : and the lay- 
man is confined within the bounds of what is commanded 
to laymen,' " page 38. Here he leaves the passage, as 
though it proved his point without a doubt. I was per- 
fectly aware of the passage when I wrote the Essay, but 
thought it too trijling to occupy space and attention ; 
except one wished for materials to make up a book. But 
Mr. Perceval should have gone on. Clemens proceeds : 
" Let every one of you therefore, brethren, bless God in 
his proper station, with a good conscience, and with all 
gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service that is ap- 
pointed to him. The daily sacrifices are not offered every- 
where ; nor the peace offerings, nor the sacrifices appoint- 
ed FOR sins and transgressions ; but only at Jerusalem — 
they, therefore, who do any thing which is not agreeable 
to his will, are punished with death. Consider, brethren, 
that by how much the better the knowledge God has vouch- 
safed unto us, by so much the greater danger are we ex- 
posed to." Now Mr. Perceval considers, that, because 
Clemens says, the Lord appointed the Jews a high priest, 
priests and Levites, this proves that we are to have bishops, 
priests, and deacons. But Clemens also says, that the Jew- 
ish church had, by divine appointment, '''daily sacrifices, 
peace offerings, and sacrifices for sins and trangressionsP 
By his argument, therefore, we must have " daily sacri- 
fices, peace offerings, and sacrifices for sins and transgres- 
sions." It will not do to say, that spiritually we must; 
for, spiritually, all God's people are a royal priesthood, 
a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable 
to God by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter ii, 5, 9. Therefore lite- 
rally and really, without a figure, on his principles, we must 



326 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

have daily sacrifices, &c. This is absurd : his argument, 
therefore, proves nothing. The simple meaning of Cle- 
mens is, that Christians are to follow God's rule for them- 
selves under the Christian dispensation, as the Jews were 
to follow God's rule for themselves under the Mosaical 
dispensation. What this rule for Christians is, he goes 
on to explain in the following sections ; and clearly shows 
that God had appointed "presbyters to be over the church, 
to RULE it, and that the people were to be subject to the 
presbyters." 

In the very Epistle to Evagrius in which Jerome expli- 
citly declares bishops and presbyters to be the same, he 
mentions the chief priest, priests and Levites, and laymen, 
as Clemens does. Grotius says, " Clemens's statement 
about the high priest, Levites, and laymen, does not per- 
tain to the Christian church, but to the temple at Jerusa- 
lem ; whence he infers, that as all things were to be done 
in a certain order by the Jews, much more should all things 
be done with decency and order among Christians.'^ Grotii 
EpistoL, p. 347, fol. Amstel., 1687. 

Mr. Perceval, p. 38, &c., tries his skill on the case of 
the church of Alexandria, where, Jerome testifies, the pres- 
byters made the bishops for about two hundred years : see 
the Essay, pp. 130-133. Archbishop Usher and Stillingfieet 
both understood Jerome as there explained. Mr. Perce- 
val says nothing on the subject of Jerome's statement that 
invalidates its testimony to the equality, by divine right, of 
bishops and presbyters. However, he makes an unusual 
stir about Eutychius. There may be some skill in this 
proceeding. Jerome was an untractable fellow, bearing a 
blunt, stubborn testimony against Mr. Perceval's scheme ; 
so he dismisses him as quickly as he can, since he can 
make nothing of him. Eutychius seemed a little more 
manageable ; he lived in a darker age ; his writings are 
incomparably less known and esteemed than Jerome's : so 
in this case it is easier to raise a dust about nothing. 
Now, in the first place, no stress was laid on Eutychius's 
authority in the Essay. It was only said that Stillingfieet 
had quoted him to prove the truth of Jerome's statement. 
The learned Selden had urged his authority for the same 
end. " But," says Mr. Perceval, " Abraham Echellensis 
has proved that Eutychius has been misunderstood." Now 



UN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 327 

what does the authority of Abraham Echellensis weigh 
against the authority of these profound scholars ? " This 
Abraham Echellensis," says the biographer of Selden, 
was " a Maronite priest, in the pay of the Roman pontiff; 
and he employed so much personal abuse in an attempt to 
refute Selden, that he injured his own reputation more 
than that of him whom he attacked."* Mr. Perceval 
speaks of the apostolical canons as evidence against Je- 
rome's statement about the presbyters of Alexandria mak- 
ing the bishop ; he forgets, 'however, to prove that these 
canons existed dX xhe time to which Jerome refers. There 
is no sufficient proof of the existence of the canon, to which 
he appeals, for the first three hundred years after Christ ; 
nor perhaps for ^yq hundred years after Christ : but this 
is no great difficulty with Mr. Perceval. He refers to the 
question of the ordination of Ischyras, but this was about 
one hundred years after the latest time of v/hich Jerome 
speaks. Mr. Perceval says the council connected with 
the matter " denied the power" of a presbyter to ordain. 
When he offers proof of this, it will be time enough to 
examine it. We deny that the council made this de- 
claration. It is not to be found in the place of Athanasius 
to which he refers. Councils pronounced ordinations null 
for " a bare contempt of ecclesiastical canons. This ordi- 
nation was done out of the diocess, in which case ordina- 
tions are nulled by council," Arel., c. 13 : see Stillingfleet's 
Irenicum, p. 381, &c. Presbyterians do not depend on 
the case of Ischyras to help their cause ; and Mr. Perce- 
val cannot prove it injures it. 

The next authority for presbyterianism, which Mr. 
Perceval examines, is that of Columba and his fellows, in 
lona, &c., as mentioned by Bede, and brought forward in 
the Essay, section xi. The purport of his first remark is, 
that as Bede mentions bishops under the authority of 
Columba, who was no bishop, but a presbyter, it v^ould be 
want of sense to suppose there was " no such thing'^ as 
episcopacy among his followers, p. 45. So we think too ; 
but we think it would equally display want of sense to 
suppose that that which might be called episcopacy among 
them, was at all like high Church episcopacy. As epis- 
copacy, it seems to have greatly resembled Lutheran epis- 

* Memoirs of Selden, by Y/. G. Johnson, London, p. 288, 8vo., 1835. 



328 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

copacy, where Luther, the presbyter^ ordained their first 
bishop. It is doubtless convenient to Mr. Perceval to con- 
found the different kinds of episcopacy; (1.) the Scrip- 
tural episcopacy, in which bishops and presbyters were 
the same; (2.) Lutheran superintendency or episcopacy ; 
(3.) the episcopacy of the English reformers ; and, (4.) 
high Church episcopacy. But such discourse confounds 
every thing, and settles nothing. He says, moreover, 
that " we know from a letter of Pope John, in Bede, that 
there were five bishops in Scotland at that time," p. 46. 
It seems Mr. Perceval does not know that Scotland then 
meant Ireland. He should read Archbishop Usher, to 
whom he there refers. He could not have made this mis- 
take, if he had ever read that work of the archbishop's — 
De Primodiis, 

" But," says he, " the superiority of the abbot of lona 
over the bishops of his house, turns out to be of the same 
nature with that which the dean of Westminster exercises 
over the bishop of Gloucester, one of the prebendaries of 
that chapter ; or which the dean of Exeter, as such, exer- 
cises over his own diocesan, as treasurer of that chap- 
ter," p. 47. Now, in the first place, Bede does not only 
say that all the bishops of '^his house''' were subject to the 
presbyter abbot ; but that this house was the head " of 
all the houses both in Britanie, and also in Ireland ; and 
that to this presbyter abbot, always, both the whole coun- 
trey, and also the bishops themselves, ought, after a strange 
and unaccustomed order, to be subject." Dr. Stapleton's 
translation. But, let us examine these cases of the 
bishop of Gloucester being, as " prebendary of Westmin- 
ster, subject to the chapter," &c. Is it " a strange and 
unaccustomed^'' thing for a prebendary to be subject to the 
chapter of that cathedral to which his prebend belongs ? 
and for a dean to have authority over the treasurer, " as 
treasurer," of the chapter of which the dean is the head 1 
Would a historian sagely report that as a strange and 
unaccustomed thing, when every body knows that it is the 
universal custom ? And it is a mere fallacy to say the 
bishop is subject, when they mean the prebendary, or the 
treasurer, " as the treasurer,^'' is subject. Let the reader 
again peruse Bede's statement, and he will see that his 
meaning clearly is, that the bishops, as bishops, were 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 329 

"always" subject to the presbyter abbot. That all these 
bishops had only presbyterian ordination is shown in the 
Essay, section xii. 

The case of the Waldenses, as favouring presbyterian- 
ism, he yields up to our argument, so far as to grant that any 
other view does " not admit of a plain and easy refutation," 
p. 47. He says it is " certain they are now presbyterians." 
If they are now presbyterians, they always were so : all 
the evidence establishes this conclusion. 

The only remaining matter worth attention in this chap- 
ter, is, his assertion, that Jerome " denies to presbyters 
the power of ordination :" easily asserted, but never to be 
proved : see the Essay, section vi. 

The fifth chapter pretends to prove the presbyterian 
scheme " suicidal." The argument he uses is, that sup- 
pose presbyters, as bishops, after the apostles' times, 
ordained others to be ministers of the gospel, that is, pres- 
byters in the church, and did not commit to them the 
power of ordaining ; then, these last had no divine right 
to ordain. This is an easy supposition with Mr. Perceval 
and his friends, viz., that man can alter God's institutions. 
It is the essence of Popery. We say, " What God hath 
joined together," no man, by human authority, " can put 
asunder :" but God hath joined the power of ordination 
with the office of a presbyter : no man, therefore, can by 
human authority put them asunder. Bishops or presbyters 
who ordain presbyters have no power to loithhold an iota 
of divine right from the office. Presbyters, therefore, have 
still a divine right to ordain. 

Here he finishes his answer to the arguments for what he 
pleases to denominate presbyterianism ; that is, for all that 
is not high Church episcopacy. And this writer, who 
cannot distinguish priests from Levites and laymen, in the 
case of " Korah and his company ;" who knows not the 
difference in argument between the whole and a part ; who 
makes Timothy a hishop of bishops, snadfve orders of min- 
isters of the gospel ; who can quote apostolical canons as 
evidence at a time when he cannot prove they were in 
existence ; whose suppositions make Bede incapable of 
writing common sense ; who quotes works which he had 
never examined on the subject for which he quotes them, 
as Usher's Primordia ; who never meets fairly one single 



330 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

argument of the Essay : — this is the writer who, as Dr. 
Hook's CHOSEN CHAMPION, has given " a complete answer*'^ 
to the " Essay on Apostolical Succession ! !" 

Well, but having vanquished the presbyterians, Mr. 
Perceval's way is clear, he supposes, to display irresistible 
evidence for high Church episcopacy ; and his first won- 
derful axiom is this — '^ I will commence," says he, " the 
episcopalian section by showing, that its utter failure 
to make good its claim to a divine origin, will not avail to 
clear the presbyterians of guilt," p. 57. Well done, Mr. 
Perceval ! It is wise for a person, who is conscious of 
an " utter failure, ^^ to provide for the case. They say it 
requires as much generalship to conduct a good retreat, as 
it does to gain a victory. But then there is an old book 
which true Protestants hold as the only and sufficient rule 
of faith, which says, " Where there is no law, there is no 
transgression ;" that " sin is not imputed v/here there is no 
law :" but Mr. Perceval can prove that where there is an 
" utter failure" to make good a divine law, yet there is 
guilt. And, what is the best of all, he says, " Mr. Powell, 
the latest writer on the other side, and John Calvin, both 
say the same. Mr. Powell, speaking of a passage of St. 
Ignatius, says, that it ' signifies that where a superintendent 
had been appointed for the sake of order,' (by human 
authority, as a human arrangement, by custom, &c., these 
expressions occur in almost every page of the Essay,) 
' that order ought to be kept ;' and then adds, ' Very right : 
so say all churches where a superintendency has been 
established, though making no pretensions to divine right 
for it.' " Mr. Perceval quotes another passage from the 
Essay, which says, that " when ministers violate the law 
of their commission, their authority so far ceases, and the 
people are in that proportion free from obligation to obey 
them." " Whether, therefore," says Mr. Perceval, '' the 
origin of episcopacy be divine or human, yet this is clear 
from the above ; namely, that seeing the British churches 
were and are actually" (by a human arrangement, says Mr. 
Powell) " governed by bishops, the presbyterians can no 
otherwise avoid the condemnation of heresy — nor the 
testimony of Mr. Powell of open violation of the written 
law of God against those who break that established order, 
than by proving that the British bishops either are not 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 331 

truly Christian bishops, or have violated the law of their 
commission ; a totally different question from that under 
consideration." Marvellous reasoning ! Mr. Powell says 
that the episcopacy of the English Church is a human 
arrangement, for the sake of order ; therefore Mr. Perceval 
says, that he, Mr. Powell, proves that the violation of this 
human arrangement is the violation of the " written law of 
G^^." Again, Mr. Powell says, that the British bishops 
never had a divine commission for that established order 
— that it is established by nothing but the authority of the 
sovereign, and the ratification of the English parliament. 
Yet Mr. Perceval states, that Mr. Powell makes it clear 
that it is heresy not to submit to it ! Mr. Powell is an 
extraordinary maii to be able to prove that a thing is divine 
because it is human ; and that heresy is the breach of 
human regulations ! 

Mr. Perceval then meets the objections of uncharitable- 
ness, exclusiveness, Sfc, and finds out that these are recom- 
mendations of his system — proofs that it is divine ! ! see 
pages 61 and 62. Then he comes to the objection of the 
Popery of this high Church scheme. H[e says this objec- 
tion " is an old device of the Papists," p. 64 ; and tells a 
tale of " one Cummin, a friar, who contrived to be taken 
into the Puritans' pulpits," &c. " The pope," he says, 
" com.mended him, and gave him a reward of two thousand 
ducats for his good behaviour." The practices of Popery 
are bad enough, I have no doubt, for all this : still Mr. 
Perceval is unfortunate in his example. Dr. Wells ob- 
jected this case of Cummins against the Dissenters above 
a hundred years ago. His talented and learned answerer, 
Mr. Pierce, referred him to Dr. CoUins's Answer to Dr. 
Scott's Case of Forms of Prayer, for proof that " the whole 
story is such a notorious forgery, that no man can lay stress 
upon it, without exposing the reputation of his judgment 
or his honesty." Pierce's Remarks on Dr. Wells's Letters, 
p. 15, 12mo., London, 1710. And in Mr. Pierce's Vindi- 
cation of the Dissenters, a masterly work, part ii, chap, i, 
he tells us, that "Dr. Wells only replied, that he did not 
before know of any such writing, and never attempted to 
vindicate those foolish forgeries." A good exailiple for 
Mr. Perceval. 

Mr. Perceval thinks, that because Christ has an eternal 



332 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

priesthood in heaven, gospel ministers must be priests 
upon earth. When he shows the law for it, we shall 
believe it. But Mr. Perceval belongs to a party who 
are nearer to Popery than to Protestantism. He is 
consistent, therefore, in wishing to establish a priest- 
hood upon earth, " daily sacrifices, offerings for sin," 
(fee. He quotes our Lord's sayings to his apostles and 
disciples about not being " called masters," as though we 
urged these sayings against "all claims on the part of the 
Christian ministry to authority and degree." Mr. Perce- 
val is expert at answering objections which were never 
made. We never urged his sayings for any such purpose. 
He is right (p. 70) in saying " that the oiJy way author- 
ized by Christ to dignity and exaltation in his church, is, 
by discharging the offices of the ministry, and thus serving 
the people :" therefore it follows that episcopal consecra- 
tions, &c., are matters of ceremony, and not essential. 

To the objection made in the Essay, that the high 
Church doctrine " was unknown to, or unnoticed by, our 
Protestant forefathers, [that is, the divines who in the 
sixteenth century opposed the Church of Rome,] and 
therefore we Protestants need not concern ourselves about 
it," pp. 71, 72 ; he properly replies, " The divines of the 
sixteenth century were neither the founders of the Chris- 
tian church, nor the writers of the sacred Scriptures ; and, 
therefore, neither the Scriptures nor the Church are to be 
tried by them, but they and their doctrines are to be tried 
by the testimony of the Scriptures and by the voice of the 
Church." That the reformers' doctrine, and the doctrine 
of all uninspired teachers is to be tried by the Scriptures, 
and not the Scriptures by their doctrine, we glory to main- 
tain, as the great distinguishing principle of Protestantism, 
in opposition to all Popery and semi-popery. But the 
reader must not suppose that Mr. Perceval and his party 
maintain it ; they hate it with a perfect hatred. The 
" voice of the church," — the voice of the church ! Here 
is their hiding place and their glory. However, should 
the reader wish to know what is meant by " the voice of 
the church," he might as soon expect to know where 
infallibility resides in the Popish Church, as to know what 
these persons mean by " the voice of the church," and 
where he is to find it. The best illustration of the case, 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 333 

that strikes me, is the reported conversation said to have 
taken place betv^een two distinguished statesmen on the 
subject of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. " What is the dif- 
ference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy ?" said one to 
the other. "Orthodoxy," the reply was, "is my doxy, 
and heterodoxy is your doxy." Ask Mr. Perceval, or any 
Papist or semi-papist, what is " the voice of the church ?" 
the answer would substantially be, " That is the voice of 
the church which says as loe say ; and all which the 
fathers say contrary to this, we explain away either as 
heresy, particular opinion, or not of faith." There is no 
more common sophism among such writers than this play 
upon the term church, always assuming that their particu- 
lar party is the " catholic church." As to the authority of 
the fathers. Bishop Taylor himself says, — " It is not hon- 
est for either side to press the authority of the fathers, as 
a concluding argument in matters of dispute, unless them- 
selves will be content to submit in all things to the testi- 
mony of an equal number of them, which I am certain 
neither side will do."* Bishop Jewel, an incomparably 
better authority, says, — " There is no way so easy to 
beguile the simple, as the name and countenance of the 
fathers."! " I see plainly," said the renowned Chilling- 
worth, " and with mine own eyes, that there are popes 
against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against 
others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fa- 
thers of one age against the consent of fathers of another age, 
the church of one age against the church of another age. 
Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended, but 
there are few or none to be found : no tradition but only 
of Scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but may 
be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such 
an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. 
In a word, there is no sufficiency hut of Scripture only, for 
any considering man to build upon."| But these high 
Churchmen are pretty good imitators of their Popish breth- 
ren, who, above all things, love " a packed juryP When 
any of the fathers will speak for them, or any thing like 
it, they parade them in the court as though the fathers 

* Lib. Prophesying, sec. viii. 

|- Preface to his Reply to Harding. 

X Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, chap, vii, sec. Ivi. 



S34 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

were infallible : they will even bring acknowledged forge- 
ries into court as true witnesses ; as Bellarmine and others 
have done with the Decretal Epistles ; but if the fathers 
say a word against them, they kick them out of court as 
individual testimonies, private opinions, not of faith, and 
the like. Mr. Perceval and his party smart incurably 
under the correction of the great English reformers. Dr. 
Hook, indeed, has the boldness to assert, that by the 
reformers the " episcopal succession was assumed as a 
necessary doctrine of the Church of England ;" and that 
" one of the falsehoods propagated in these modern days 
is, that the reformers did not hold the divine right of 
episcopacy :" see that queer thing, " A Call to Union on 
the Principles of the Reformation, a Visitation Sermon, by 
the Rev. W. F. Hook, D. D., price 3s, 6d.^' Appendix, pp. 
140, 141. " The principles of the Church," says he, " as 
we have seen, form an in surmount able harrier between us 
and the Dissenters, and render union with those parties 
IMPOSSIBLE," p. 41. A glorious call to union ! It is a call, 
indeed, to Churchmen to unite to persecute Dissenters ; that 
is, all who presume to differ from these lordly priests. 
Did the reformers proclaim such sentiments to Calvin, to 
Peter Martyr, Bucer, John Knox, &c. ? Let the reader 
carefully examine section seventh of the Essay, for a 
refutation of all such libels on the reformers. 

Mr. Perceval comes to the objection that " there is no 
sufficient historic evidence of a personal succession of 
valid episcopal ordinations :" we have noticed his reply 
before — see the place. But after " yielding at once" that 
this is the case, he thinks that " if it be a moral i7npossi' 
hility that any man, who had not been duly consecrated, 
could be accounted a bishop of the Church of England at 
XhQ present time, then the onus rests upon the objectors to 
say how that which is morally impossible now, could have 
been morally possible at any other period, "^^ ^. S9. That 
is, what is morally impossible now, in times of order, is, 
according to Mr. Perceval, by the same rule, morally im- 
possible in times of confusion : that what is morally impos- 
sible in the light, is, by the same rule, morally impossible 
in the dark ! Fine reasoning ! But facts are stubborn 
things. And though it is a mere subterfuge to pretend 
that the onus of proof lies upon us ; yet, as these boasters 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 335 

of the proof of their scheme being " evident to every one," 
were chary of their production of that evidence, we have 
done what our argument needed not, we have produced 
proofs from unexceptionable testimony against the validity 
of the episcopal consecrations through which these men 
trace their succession. Mr. Perceval has invalidated none 
of them : see sections x and xiii of the Essay. Indeed Mr. 
Perceval himself furnishes us with proofs of the same 
kind. He says, at p. 110 of the Appendix, that there are 
" many instances to be found in church history of persons 
consecrated to the episcopate from the laityr Now we 
shall be glad to see Mr. Perceval prove that these were 
''duly consecrated bishops." On his principles he never 
can. On Scriptural principles, which admit that bishops 
and presbyters are one and the same office, there is no 
difficulty ; but then this cannot help Mr. Perceval, as he 
rejects these principles. Mr. Perceval's " moral impossi- 
bility," therefore, is contradicted by plain /ac^^*, and, on 
his own showing, " many instances are to be found in 
church history of persons" not " duly consecrated to the 
episcopate." For " a bishop ordained per saltum^' that is, 
" that never had the ordination of a presbyter, can neither 
consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lord's 
body, nor ordaine a presbyter."* Historic evidence 
failing, and moral impossibility failing, we see something 
of the " utter failure''' for w^hich Mr. Perceval ominously 
provided. 

He thinks, p. 82, that the fact of the contradictions of 
history about the succession of the first ministers of the 
Church of Rome is of no importance ; it is enough, he sup- 
poses, that the church was then governed by bishops : but 
what kind of bishops ? Irenaeus addresses them by the 
title of "presbyters ;'' Clement, who is supposed to have 
been one of them, writing to the church of Corinth, knows 
nothing about any bishop but what was identical with, and 
more distinguished by, the title of " presbyter." That, in 
the second century, the chief presbyter acted as a super- 
intendent by the consent and authority of the other pres- 
byters, may be granted : nothing more can be proved. 
But what will this episcopacy do for Mr. Perceval and his 
party ? Nothing ! 

* Dr. Field, " Of the Church," b. iii, chap, xxxix, p. 157, fol. ed., 1635. 



336 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

As a ^'forlorn hope,^^ he takes to the case of Judas, the 
traitor: the reader will find this case settled to Mr. 
Perceval's satisfaction at pages 261, 262, of the Essay. 

Mr. Perceval, having cleared his system of the objec- 
tions above noticed, as exhibited in this review, now 
comes to display the full glory of evidence for his scheme 
of episcopacy. In noticing Congregationalism and presby- 
terianism, his method was to place what he represents as 
their Scriptural evidence first ; and then, in the second 
place, the ecclesiastical evidence : in displaying the evi- 
dence for episcopacy, he reverses this order, and places 
ecclesiastical antiquity first ; and then, in the second place, 
the evidence from the Scriptures, This, in Mr. Perceval, 
IS consistent. Thus Papists and high Churchmen place 
the word of God under the authority, subject to the inter- 
pretation, of what they call the Church. However, after 
all, the reader who may not have the privilege of seeing 
Mr. Perceval's Apology, can hardly conceive what a mea- 
gre, miserable display, he makes of the evidence of eccle- 
siastical antiquity. A few trite passages from the fathers, 
Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, &c., are strung together, 
without hardly a single line to prove that they support his 
scheme. If it should be said that their evidence for his 
scheme is so clear as to need no explanation, we believe 
many of those who have candidly read the Essay will 
not be of this opinion. A complete answer to that work 
from such men as Dr. Hook and his party, should by 
all means have answered this part of it. But no : Mr. 
Perceval is afraid of " tiring his readers^ patience^'' p. 96. 
Very well : Mr. Perceval's kindness to his readers may 
pass, only he does not forget, that he has not answered 
the question. 

In the conclusion of this chapter, after quoting what are 
called the apostolical canons — a number of canons or 
regulations collected nobody knows when, nor by whom 
— he says " the Nicene council universally treats of bish- 
ops, and bishops only, as having power to ordain." That 
the canons of the Nicene council speak only about bish- 
ops ordaining bishops, we grant ; but if Mr. Perceval 
intends his reader to understand that that council gave any 
decision that presbyters had not power to ordain presbyters, 
or even bishops, he misleads his reader : that council 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 337 

made no such decision. Perhaps the reader may recollect 
that the Epistle of this council to the church of Alexan- 
dria was quoted section vi, of the Essay. In this Epistle, 
the council speaks of certain clergymen who " should have 
power to ordain," &c. Some reasoning is there employed 
against Valesius to prove that these clergymen were pres- 
byters — he supposing that they were bishops. That rea- 
soning is established as correct by the express statement 
of Athanasius, 0pp., vol. i, p. 732, B. C=, edit. Paris, 1627. 
Here, then, this point of the power of presbyters to ordain 
is established by the council of Nice. They say that 
these presbyters were to have, that is, to continue to have, 
power to ordain ; which ordaining by presbyters, the 
Epistle states, was " according to the ecclesiastical law 
and sanction." So much for the council of Nice treating 
" of bishops only having poioer to ordain." The only diffi- 
culty in the passage is in the rendering of the word 
irgoxsigt^oiiai. It sometimes seems to mean to propose for 
ordination, or to elect : this I admit. But then it also 
means to ordain ; and, what is important, it is indisputably 
used in the sense of ordaining in this Epistle only a few 
lines before, as to the bishop of Alexandria. The two acts 
of ordaining and electing are several times spoken of 
in this Epistle in varied phraseology — e^ovatav ex^tv 
XeiQodereiv, TTQox^iQi^^odai — e^ovoiav rrpoxstQC^eadac, i) 
VTTo(3aXXeiv ovofjiara — s^ovmav exeiv irgox^igi^^odac, aat 
ovofiara einXeyeodaL. Here it will be noticed that ordi- 
nation is always spoken of first ; and invariably as the 
exercise of authority — e^ovotav ; the latter clause of the 
two referring to the proposing of names, or electing. This 
authority of ordaining, is, in two of these passages, accom- 
panied by the word we have rendered to ordain. The 
application of it to ordaining by the bishop of Alexandria 
is indisputable. These presbyters, then, are said to have 
e^ovatav npoxstptpecFdat, authority or power to ordain ; and 
this " according to ecclesiastical law and sanction." Such 
seems to me to be the legitimate meaning of the place. 
However, I do not wish to be positive, as there is some 
ambiguity in the language of the Epistle. But I am posi- 
tive that the council did not deny the power of presbyters 
to ordain : I think the above are strong reasons to believe 
that their Epistle affirmed it. 

15 



338 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

We now come to the Scriptural testimony for Mr. Per- 
ceval's scheme of episcopacy. But, alas ! for Dr. Hook, 
Mr. Perceval, and their party ! the Scriptures have so 
little to help their case, that this champion of their cause 
occupied very nearly as much of his work with Eutychius 
and Abraham Echellensis, as he does with the whole of 
the testimony of the Scripture in behalf of their system. 
But it is better to be silent when we have nothing to say. 
The Scriptural testimonies which he produces, are, the 
angels in the Apocalypse ; the case of Timothy and 
Titus ; the apostles' superintendence of the churches which 
they founded — which nobody ever denied ; — the commis- 
sion of our Lord to his apostles : — these are the principal, 
and almost the only instances, which he notices ; but as 
he does not even attempt an answer to that part of the 
Essay which treats on these passages, we have a right to 
conclude that he felt it to be unanswerable. The highest, 
the supreme evidence, the evidence of the Holy Scriptures, 
against this high Church episcopacy, remains, therefore, 
in all its integrity and completeness. This is the all- 
deciding point. 

Speaking of the exhortations to unity to be found in our 
Lord's discourses, Mr. Perceval says, p. 106, " Our oppo- 
nents are ever fond of citing those passages in Tertullian, 
Jerome, and others, which affirm that episcopacy was 
necessarily instituted for the preservation of unity. But if 
unity be a necessary end in the church, and episcopacy 
the necessary means for attaining that end, then how can 
the inference be set aside, that the Lord of glory, who or- 
dained the end, must himself likewise have ordained the 
means necessary for attaining that end ?" This statement 
is incorrect : those passages in the Essay which speak 
about the reasons assigned by the fathers for the institu- 
tion of episcopacy, do not say that the fathers " affirmed 
that episcopacy was necessarily instituted for the promotion 
of unity ;" but only that their opinion was that it was 
designed to promote this unity. But suppose they had 
affirmed this necessity for episcopacy as a means for the 
promotion of unity, still the argument is false : both the 
premises are false ; the conclusion, therefore, must be 
false also. The argument in full is as follows : 

What the fathers affirm is necessary as a means to the 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 339 

unity of the church, Christ instituted as a necessary means 
to the unity of the church : 

But the fathers affirm that episcopacy is a necessary 
means to the unity of the church : therefore, 

Christ instituted episcopacy as a necessary means to the 
unity of the church. 

In the first, or major proposition, Mr. Perceval hegs the 
question; it is neither proved nor granted: it is false. 
The next step with this argument lands us in full-grown 
Popery. The authorities of that church say, that a uni- 
versal bishop is necessary for the unity of the church ; 
ergo, Christ instituted a universal bishop — the pope. The 
second, or minor proposition, is false also, in Mr. Perce- 
val's sense : the fathers never expressed an opinion, nor 
affirmed either, that the liind of episcopacy for which Mr. 
Perceval, Dr. Hook, and their party, contend, was neces- 
sary for the unity of the church. This is sufficiently 
shown in the Essay. The premises failing, the conclusion 
falls to the ground. 

Mr. Perceval concludes his Apology for Apostolical 
Succession with a long Appendix, employed in proving 
many things which nobody disputes. This no doubt was 
much the pleasantest part of the work to Mr. Perceval. 

Here we conclude this Critique on Mr. Perceval's task, 
enjoined by his friend Dr. Hook. He has '' yielded'^ up 
the cause of historical evidence ; " utterly faiW^^ to prove 
a divine origin of their system ; and ineffectually attempts 
an answer to the proofs that ecclesiastical episcopacy is a 
mere human arrangement. Such is this complete answer 
to the Essay on Apostolical Succession, by this chosen 
champion of Dr. Hook ! The reader is left to form his 
own judgment upon its completeness. 



AN APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING 

A REVIEW OF DR. HOOK'S SERMON 
ON " HEAR THE CHURCH." 

PREACHED BEFORE THE QUEEN, AT THE CHAPEL ROYAL, IN ST. JAMES'S 
PALACE, JUNE 17, 1838. 

Dr. Hook is the apostle and high priest of the high 
Church scheme of the present times. If assertions were 
proofs, his writings would contain convincing evidence of 
the authority of his mission. I doubt his assertions ; and 
I controvert his scheme. His doctrine of the succession 
has been sufficiently refuted in the preceding Essay ; in- 
deed, the arguments in the Essay do, in their consequence, 
demolish his whole high Church building. 

But there is one topic upon which he evidently delights 
to dwell ; for he speaks and preaches it everywhere ; it is 
this — That the present Church of England was founded 
by the apostles, and has come down to the present day, 
with no greater difference, at any time, from that apostolic 
church, than the difference caused in the same man by 
having his face washed or unwashed; see page 13 of his 
sermon. This is his favourite illustration. Speaking of 
the Church of this country before the Reformation, when 
sworn to Popery, the pope acknowledged as its head by 
all its authorities, when governed by bishops who preach- 
ed the doctrines, and were sworn to the government of 
Popery, when the Church itself was filled with idols and 
abominations ; with perfect and full-grown Popery, — and 
comparing that Church with the Church after the Refor- 
mation, he says, " The Church remained the same 

AFTER IT WAS REFORMED AS IT WAS BEFORE, jUSt aS a man 

remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was 
hefore^^ page 12. The conclusions he draws from this 
argument, are, that the Church of England " maintains 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 341 

those peculiar doctrines and that peculiar discipline, which 
have ALWAYS marked, and do still continue to mark, the 
distinction between the church of Christ, administered 
under the superintendence of chief pastors or bishops 
who have regularly succeeded to the apostles, from those 
sects of Christianity which exist under self-appointed 
teachers ; — that this Church is the only church of Christ 
in this kingdom : — that it possesses its original endowments, 
which were never, as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, 
taken from one church and given to another," page 12 ; — 
that her bishops have regularly succeeded to the apostles ; 
and that her ministers are the only divinely commissioned 
ministers in this kingdom : all other denominations are 

SECTARIANS, SCHISMATICS, and left to the UNCOVENANTED 

mercies of God. On this ground he has the intolerable 
arrogance thus to insult the Christian churches in general 
in America : " When the United States of America 
were English colonies, the English Church was there 
established : at the revolution, the state was destroyed.* 
Monarchy has there ceased to exist ; but the Church, 
though depressed for a time, remained uninjured : so that 
there — among the American republicans — under the super- 
intendence of no fewer than sixteen bishops, you will find 
her sacraments and ordinances administered, and all her 
ritual and liturgical services celebrated, with no less of piety, 
zeal, and solemnity, than here in England ; there you may 
see the Church, like an oasis in the desert, blessed 
by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings 
around her, in a land where, because no religion is esta- 

* This attack upon the religions bodies of the United States he 
mixes up with a political philippic. The writer is no advocate for a 
republic : indeed, he leaves politics in general to others. Yet there 
is a sentiment, on the page adjoining the last quotation, which de- 
serves remark. The doctor says, " Were all connection between Church 
and state to cease, ice may be sure the monarchy would be destroyed.''^ 
This was telling the queen that none are loyal to her, as the queen, e.r- 
cept she pays them for it ; and the same to kings in general. Dr. Hook, 
and such as he, may speak from their own feelings, as to ichat they 
would do for the queen if not pj^id by her : but to affirm it of Chris- 
tians in general, is a vile slander, and is calculated to disaffect the 
mind of the queen toward all her Christian subjects who are not of the 
Establishment. All real Christians receive the Bible as the rule of their 
faith and practice. From the Bible they learn to " submit to thepoicers 
thatbe,^^ equally as much under a monarchy as under a republic. The 



342 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

blished, if it were not for her, nothing but the ex- 
tremes ofiNFiDELiTY or fanaticism would prevail," pp.7, 8. 

The reader sees at once that this is the succession 
scheme a little modified. That scheme has been suffi- 
ciently refuted in the Essay. We intend in this review 
of the sermon, to expose the sophistry of this modification. 
Here, " the Church" is the topic : — " bishops" were the 
former topic. 

If Dr. Hook be the man he is said to be, it is hard to 
suppose that he is not conscious of the sophistry of his own 
argument : in which case he would be a public deceiver : 
if his reasoning poAvers be weak, he may possibly be en- 
tangled in his own net. Be these things as they may, his 
argum^ent is a tissue of sophistry : — we shall endeavour to 
untioist it, and break its force of deceiving. 

The GREAT FALLACY or dclusiou of the whole argument 
lies in using the expression " the Church^'^ in different 
SENSES, in different parts of the argument ; that is, as lo- 
gicians would say, in changing the terms. 

The way in which he manages this, is, by giving only 
a general and imperfect definition of the terms in the be- 
ginning 'of his sermon ; and then, introducing particulars 
into it in the progress, ^s is the most convenient for decep- 
tion. So, at pages 5 and 8, he says, " Now at the very 
OUTSET, I must state that I refer to the Church, not as a 
mere national establishment of religion, but as the Church, 
a religious community, intrinsically independent of the 
state ; that is to say, I am about to treat the Church, not 

Wesleyan Methodists, for instance, yield not to the members of the 
Establishment in loyalty to the queen. But farther — Was the Chris- 
tian church connected with the state for the first three hundred 
YEARS 1 Bid not the state then persecute the church everywhere 1 
The Roman republic had ceased to be when the Christian church began 
to exist. The emperor was more absolute than the king of England. 

Now, DID THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS RISE TO DESTROY THE THRONE ? 

Hear Tertullian : " In all our prayers, w^e are ever mindful of all 
our emyerors and kings wheresoever we live", beseeching God for every 
one of them without distinction, that he would bless them with length 
of days, and a quiet reign, a well-established family, a stout army, a 
faithful senate, an honest people, a peaceful world, and whatsoever else 
either prince or people can wish for." For Dr. Hook to go before the 
queen to propagate his libel upon all her Christian subjects, and upon 
Christianity in general, deserves the severest rebuke. Such a man can 
cast "firebrands, arrows, and death, and say. Am I not in sport 1" 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 343 

m its political, but simply and solely in its religious charac- 
ter. And so you may perceive what is meant, when we 
say, that we wish to speak of the Church, not as an esta- 
blishment, but as the Church, a religious society, a 
PARTICULAR SOCIETY OF CHRISTIANS." Then, this ''par- 
ticular society of Christians'^^ becomes " our ChurcfC^ — 
" the Church of England" — " the Church ;" and, at 
the last, on the last page, this ''particular society of Chris- 
tians^"" becomes distinguished from all other " religious 
societies"" by these specific properties, as " maintain- 
ing those peculiar doctrines, and that peculiar disci- 
pline, which have always marked, and do still continue 
to mark, the distinction between the church of Christ, 
administered under the superintendence of chief pastors 
or bishops who regularly succeeded to the apostles, 
from those sects of Christianity under self appointed. 
teachersP Well, thanks be to the doctor for giving us, at 
last, a complete definition of the Chm'ch of England. This 
definition, as perfected by himself, is, " That the Church 
of England is a particular society of Christians distinguish- 
ed from all other particular religious societies, by its pecu- 
liar doctrines, and its peculiar discipline." By discipline, 
he tells us, he means its church government, as adminis- 
tered hy its bishops: their succession is another question, 
and has been fully treated in the Essay. 

Now let us try his main position : " the present Church 
of England is the old Catholic Church of England, reform- 
ed, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, of cer- 
tain superstitious errors ; it is the same Church which 
came down from our British and Saxon ancestors. The 
Church remained the same cfter it was reformed as it was 
before, just as a man remains the same man after he has 
washed his face as he teas before j'"* pp. 11, 12. 

Here, then, let us examine the m.atter. The Church 
before the Reformation was "^particular religious society ;" 
and the Church after the Reformation v/as " a particular 
religious society." There is, then, this general agreement, 
that each was " a religious society." So a harlot* is a wo- 

* Some respectable persons have made a little objection to this ilhis- 
tration. The writer has duly weighed their observations, and thinks 
them groundless, for the following reasons : 1st. The authority of th(? 
word of God, and of all the great reformers, justifies and authorizes the 



344 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

man, and a virgin is a woman. There is this general agree- 
ment between them, that each is a woman. Now if we 
wish to know the difference that distinguishes the harlot 
from the virgin, we should be told that it would be the 
peculiar principles, manners, and conduct of each. If, 
then, we wish to know the difference that distinguishes the 
Church before the Reformation, from the Church after the 
Reformation, the answer would be, " The peculiar doc- 
trines and the peculiar discipline of each Church." Each 
is a Church, that is, " a religious society ;" as each of the 
above persons is a woman : but were those Churches the 
SAME ? This will be answered by another question — ^Are a 
harlot and a virgin the same ? Yes, according to Dr. 
Hook, if the harlot washes her face ! 

Let us look at the face of the Church before the Refor- 
mation, and at the face of the Church after the Reforma- 
tion : — at their peculiar doctrines, and their peculiar 
discipline. 

1. Peculiar doctrines: 

Transubstantiation. — The Church, before the Refor- 
mation, maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation, and 
committed hundreds to the flames for disputing it : but 

The Church, after the Reformation, declares it " repug- 
nant to the plain words of Scripture, that it overthroweth the 
nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many 
superstitions." Art. 28th of the Church of England. 

Masses. — The Church, before the Reformation, main- 
tained that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and 
dead to have remission oi pain and guilt : — 

The Church, after the Reformation, declares these 
positions to be " blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits!'^ 
Article 31st of the Church of England. 

Images. — The Church, before the Reformation, main- 
tained the worship of images, and the churches were full of 
images : — 

The Church, after the Reformation, declares this to be 
IDOLATRY ; see homily on idolatry. Thus also the 22d 

application of the term harlot as the most appropriate designation of a 
corrupt church ; so it is here applied to the Church of Rome. 2ndly. 
The contrast of the purity of the Church of England by the term 
virgin, pays a respect to that Church, as constituted by the reformers, 
and as a most important branch of the Protestant church, which, under 
this view, the writer has a pleasure in paying. 



OxN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 345 

Article : " The Romish doctrine concerning imrgatory^ 
pard.ons, worshipping and adoration^ as well of images as of 
reliques^ and also i?ivocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly 
invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but 
rather repugnant to the word of God." 

Justification. — The Church, before the Reformation, 
maintained that a man was justified through the grace of 
God by works, and not by faith only : — 

The Church, after the Reformation, maintained that the 
doctrine " that we are justified by faith only, is a most 
loholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely 
is expressed in the homily of justification." Article 11. 

These points of doctrine may suffice — many more might 
be added. 

2. Peculiar discipline : 

The Church, before the Reformation, acknowledged the 

POPE as SUPREME HEAD OF THE ChURCH, aS ChRIST's 

VICAR, and that all were heretics who rejected him. A 
few passages from the canon law, as collected by Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, and given in the Collection of Records 
by Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, 
book iii. No. 27, will illustrate this point : 

"He that acknowledgeth not himself to be under the 
bishop of Rome, and that the bishop of Rome is ordained 
by God to have primacy over all the world, is a heretic, 
and cannot be saved, nor is not of the flock of Christ. 

'• All the decrees of the bishop of Rome ought to be kept 
perpetually of every man, without any repugnancy, as 
God's ivord spoken by the mouth of Peter, and whosoever 
doth not receive them, neither availeth them the Catholic 
faith, nor the four evangelists, but they blaspheme the Holy 
Ghost, and shall have no forgiveness. 

" The see of Rome hath neither spot noY wrinkle in it, 
nor cannot err. 

" The bishop of Rome may excommunicate emperors and 
princes, and depose them from their states, and assoil 
their subjects from their oath and obedience to them, and so 
oo?is train them to rebellion T 

All the bishops in England, before the Reformation, 
SWORE OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE OF RoME : see sectiou 
xii of the Essay : but 

The Church, after the Reformation, declared the pope to 

15* 



346 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

he antichrist, ihe son of jjeixlition ; and the Church of Rome 
to be an idolatrous Churcli: see Essay, section xi. And 
everT/ bishop of the Church of England is bound to reject 
THE AUTHORITY of the popc and the court of Rome, under 

the PENALTY of PR^MUNIRE. 

Thus we see that the ^'peculiar doctrines and the pecu- 
liar discipline^'' of the Church before the Reformation, and 
those of the Church after the Reformation, expressly 
CONTRADICT EACH OTHER: the Church after the Reforma- 
tion charging idolatry and blasphemy upon the Church 
before the Reformation. Yet, says Dr. Hook, " They are 
the same." And Dr. Hook can prove it — yea more — he 
can prove, by his principles, that black is white, and that 
two and tivo are five. Thus, tioo and tioo are numbers ; 
andj^i;^ is a number ; ergo, two and two are the same as 
five, that is, they are both numbers : — black is a colour, 
and white is a colour ; ergo, black and lohite are the same, 
that is, they are both colours. Yes, replies the reader, 
but it ivas supposed you meant that two and two were the 
same in amount as five ; and that black v/as the same 
colour as white. True, but this is leaving the general 
nature of the things, and coming to the specific differences ; 
and I only spoke in generals. Dr. Hook only shows you 
the general nature of the thing at fi.rst : the Church before 
the Reformation is a religious society, and the Church 
after the Reformation is a religious society ; ergo, they 
are the same, that is, theij are both religious societies ; as 
black and white are both colours. True, says the reader, 
hut toe supposed lie meant that they had the same distiu' 
guishing properties or qualities. Whether Dr. Hook meant 
it himself or not, I cannot say ; but he doubtless meant 
his readers to think they had the same distinguishing proper- 
ties, that is, the same peculiar doctrines, and the same 
peculiar discipline : see p. 23 of his serm.on as quoted 
above. Hov/ever, it was neither convenient for him to 
say so " at the outset" of his sermon, nor was it agreeable 
to him to exhibit this their identity afterv/ard: black 
would have been seen to be black, and white would have 
been white still : the virgin would have appeared a virgin, 
and the harlot would have appeared a harlot, after the doc- 
tor's perspiration in washing her face. 

The doctor's position, then, is a mere fallacy , involving 



ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 347 

the real absurdity, that two religious societies, distinguish- 
ed as societies by their "j[?ecw /far doctrines, and their j^ec?.^- 
liar discipline," and v^h.o^e peculiar doctrines diwdi peculiar 
discipline flatly contradict each other, are yet one and the 
same society, thafr is, that contradictory propositions are 
identical propositions !— They are, — just as much so as 
black and white are the same, and as two and two are five. 

The absurdity of the doctor's position being thus mani- 
fest, all his conclusions fall to the ground ; and the fol- 
lowing opposite conclusions become established : 

Conclusion 1st. — The Church before the Reformation, 
and the Church after the Reformation, are two different 
churches, distinguished by directly opposite peculiar doc- 
trines, and peculiar discipline, or church government. 

Conclusion 2d. — The Church after the Reformation, as 
distinguished by its peculiar doctrine and peculiar disci- 
pline, was founded at the Reformation, as much so as the 
Scotch church, the Lutheran church, or any of those 
other sects toward which the doctor manifests such 
scorn. 

As to the succession of the bishops of the Church of 
England, through the Church of Rome, or through the 
Church before the Reformation, we have shown in the 
Essay, that they have no more claim, on that ground, than 
bastards have to the inheritance of legitimate children. 

Conclusion 3d. — The Church of England, and the 
bishops of the Church of England, have no more just af- 
finity to the British or Saxon churches, than any other 
church that equally resembles them in peculiar doctrine 
and discipline. The doctor's assertion, at page 9, that 
" the Church, as at the period of the Reformation, had ex- 
isted, as all parties admit, from the first planting of Chris- 
tianity in England," is one of his accustomed, hardy, fal- 
lacious, and baseless statements. Had that Church, as 
distinguished at the period of the Reformation by such 
" peculiar doctrines and peculiar discipline" as we have 
seen above, existed as always marked (p. 23) by those 
" peculiar doctrines and that peculiar discipline" from the 
first planting of Christianity in England 1 Yes ! the doc- 
tor says, " All parties admit" this ! ! Then all parties 
admit that full-grovv'n Popery existed in England from 
the first planting of Christianity in this country ! ! The 



348 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

reader who believes this is worthy to be a disciple of Dr. 
Hook. 

Conclusion 4th. — The right of the present Church of 
England to those church endowments, which existed before 
the Reformation, is merely statute right. The parliament, 
has as much power to alienate as to appropriate. If the 
Church of England has a righteous claim to those endow- 
ments, any other church might, by another statute, have an 
equally righteous claim to them. 

The sum of the whole, is, then, that the Church of 
England, as a religious society, must establish its claim 
to affinity with apostolical churches, with the British and 
Saxon churches, and the Church before the Reformation, by 
the resemblance of its peculiar doctrines and its peculiar 
discipline to the peculiar doctrines and the peculiar disci- 
pline of those churches. Her bishops, and her other 
ministers, must prove their claim to apostolicity by their 
likeness to the apostles in personal piety, a divine call to 
the ministry, and by the preaching of the faith as the 
apostles preached it. Whatever they possess besides is 
but as the chaff to the wheat. All other churches must 
do the same. Here is the divine rule. Here let all strive 
to excel: let all covet the best gifts. Above all, let them 
keep in mind the 7nore excellent way. What is true indi- 
vidually, is true of churches collectively : " Though I 
speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not 
charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling 
cymbal," (fee, 1 Cor. xii. 



GENERAL INDEX 



Abbots, though only presbyters, or- 
dain bishops, 155, note. 

Aerius, 128. 

African church never maintained 
episcopacy jure divino J 169. 

Alasco, John, 192, &lc. 

American churches, Dr. Hook's 
attack upon, 341. 

Ambrose, St., on bishops as apos- 
tles, 30, 45 — on the primus pres- 
byter, 96 — his Commentaries, 
126 — on succession of faith, 284. 

Ancyra, council of, on presbyters 
ordaining, 133. 

Angels of the seven churches of 
Asia, 59-63, 141-143. 

Apostle, different meanings of the 
word, 36, &c. — prerogatives of, 
41, (fee. — power of, 314. 

Apostleship of bishops examined, 
29-50. 

Apostolical bishops, who 1 49. 

Arian bishops, ordination by, 257, 
258. 

Athanasius on episcopacy examin- 
ed, 128. 

Augsburg confession on the identity 
of bishops and presbyters, 177. 

Augustine, bishop of Hippo, on 
the word apostle, 46 — on the au- 
thority of fathers and councils, 
89 — on the office of a presbyter, 
133. 

Austin the monk, his treachery, 
242. 

Baptism nullified by confirmation, 
197, 198. 

Baronius on the election of the 
popes, 220, &c. 

Barrow, Dr. Isaac, on the nature 
of proofs, 34 — on the apostolical 
office, 49 — his arguments destroy 
high Church episcopacy, 51 — on 



forsaking bad and heretical minis- 
ters, 79 — remarks on Cyprian, 
120, 121. 

Barrington, Lord, on Clemens Ro- 
manus, 98. 

Bede, on British bishops, 238, &c. 

Bellarmine on bishops having no 
part of true apostolical authority, 
49. 

Bentley, Dr., on bishops being suc- 
cessors of the apostles, 32. 

Beveridge, Bishop, gives up Scrip- 
tural authority for any certain 
form of church government, 27 
— on the term high priest, 50. 

Beza, on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 202 — on episco- 
pacy, 301. 

Bickersteth, Rev. E., his Christian 
Student quoted, 277. 

Bilney, the martyr, on the inward 
call to the ministry, 73. 

Bingham's Origines Ecclesiasticse 
quoted, 30 — on the authority of 
Jerome, 95. 

Bishop, eTTiaKOTTog, meaning of, in 
the New Testament, 82-87. 

Bishops, how successors of the 
apostles, 29-50 — hovsr they re- 
semble the Jewish high priests, 
50, 51 — ancient British, account 
of, 237-242. 

Bishopric, 86. 

Blondel, David, on the identity of 
bishops and presbyters, 204. 

Bochart, on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 204. 

Bona, Cardinal, quoted, 90. 

Burnet, Bishop, quoted, 146, 149, 
154, 192 — on the elections of the 
popes, 219 — on the nature of the 
Christian ministry, 265, 266. 

Cabas^ute quoted, 113, 120. 



350 



INDEX. 



C alder wood's Altare Bamascenum 
quoted, 132. 

Calvin, on confirmation, 197 — on 
the identity of bishops and pres- 
byters, 202 — on Popish ordina- 
tions, 263 — letter to Archbishop 
Cranmer, 269 — on apostolical 
succession, 284, 285. 

Canon law quoted, 170. 

Carthage, fourth council of, quoted, 
119, 120. 

Catholic Church, what 1 298. 

Cave, Dr., on the character of 
Epiphanius, 129. 

Chairs, apostolical, presbyters sit 
in, 113. 

Chairs, bishops', what ^ 113,117. 

Charity of Papists and high Church- 
men, 22, 23. 

Chemnitius on the atrocity of the 
succession scheme, 19. 

Chillingworth, on divine right, 25 — 
a fine passage from, 292. 

Church government, 32, 299. 

Church of England, as by the re- 
formers, 11, 144-169, 301, 340. 

Church and state, 144, 303-305, 
341, note. 

Chrysostom, on ordhiation, ex- 
plained, 129-132. 

Chor-episcopi, or village bishops, 
133, 134. 

Claude, on the absurdity of the high 
Church scheme20 — on the identi- 
ty of bishops and presbyters, 204. 

Clemens Alexandrinus on episco- 
pacy, examined, 114, &c. 

Clemens Romanus's Epistle com- 
mented upon, 97, &c., 324, 325. 

Clergy, English, general exclusive- 
ness of, 11. 

Collega, term explained, 119, 120. 

Columba, the abbot of the monas- 
tery of lona, &c., governs 
bishops, 238-241, 328. 

Comenius quoted, 180. 

Comber, Dr., on the baselessness 
of succession, 217, &c. 

Commission of Christ to the apos- 
tles, explained, 27, 28. 

Confession of Augsburg on the 



identity of bishops and presby- 
ters, 177. 

Confirmation examined, 196-200. 

Congregationalism, 316. 

Cox, Dr., the reformer, on the 
identity of bishops and presby- 
ters, 150. 

Cosin, Bishop, on presbyterian or- 
dination, 48, 154. 

Courayer, Dr., on English ordina- 
tions, quoted, 137, 138. 

Cranmer, archbishop of Canter- 
bury, on episcopal consecration, 
137, 138 — on the identity of 
bishops and presbyters, 150, 202. 

Cummin, the friar, 331. 

Cyprian, on episcopacy, examined, 
118, &c. — on genuine succes- 
sion, 282. 

Daille, the celebrated French Pro- 
testant divine, exposes the plea 
of Timothy's being bishop of 
Ephesus, 58 — on the identity of 
bishops and presbyters, 204. 

Damian, P., cardinal-bishop of 
Ostia, quoted, 254. 

Dodwell, the Rev. H., on unity 
with bishops as necessary to 
salvation, 17 — gives up Scrip- 
tural evidence for any particular 
-form of church government, 26, 
32 — on the office of an apostle, 33 
— on Judas, 33 — his arguments 
establish a popedom, 121. 

Edward VI. (King) on the high 
priesthood, 52. 

Elections of popes described, 220. 

Elfric, Saxon archbishop of Can- 
terbury, canons of, 92. 

England, king of, the vassal of the 
pope, 245. 

English bishops before the Refor- 
mation, ordination and descent 
of, 243, &c. 

Enthronization of bishops, 137. 

Epaphroditus, a messenger of the 
church, his office explained, 40. 

Epiphanius's character, &c., 128. 

Episcopacy of the New Testament, 
what? 82-88. 



INDEX. 



351 



Episcopacy, ecclesiastical, what 1 
95, &c., 141-144. 

Episcopal consecration non-essen- 
tial, 136-139. 

Erasmus, on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 202. 

Exclusiveness too general among 
the clergy of the Church of 
England, 1 1 — of the high Church 
succession scheme, 22, and gen- 
erally through the Essay. 

Evangelist, what 1 55. 

Eusebius, on the word apostle, 45 
— on the darkness and difficulty 
of the succession, 215, 216. 

Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, 
quoted, 132, 326. 

Faber's work on the Vallenses, 
quoted, 190 — remark on, 190. 

Faith, succession of, the only essen- 
tial succession, 107-111, 281. 

Fathers, authority of, 89, &c. 

Field, Dr., on the identity of bish- 
ops and presbyters, 162-166 — 
on genuine succession, 287. 

Firmilian, bishop of Cesarea, on 
ordination by presbyters, 125. 

Flacius Illyricus, M., on the iden- 
tity of bishops and presbyters, 
203. 

French reformed church, maintains 
the identity of bishops and presby- 
ters, 178 — on confirmation, 197. 

Froude, R.Hurrelljan Oxford Tract- 
man, hates the Reformation, 144 
— is disgusted with Bishop Jew- 
el's Defence, 156. 

Fulke, Dr., on the nullity of Popish 
ordination, 265. 

*' Gift of God," what '? 323. 
Gildas's account of the wickedness 

of the bishops in his days, 238. 
Godwin, Bishop, on the Lives of 

the English Bishops, 243, &c. 
Godwin, Dr., on the Jewish high 

priesthood, 51. 
Gradin, Arvid, quoted, 181. 
Greek church never maintained 

episcopacy jure divino, 170 — 

on confirmation, 199. 



Gregory Nazianzen, on genuine 
succession, 283. 

"Grindal, Abp. of Canterbury, ap- 
proves of presbyterian ordination, 
154. 

Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, re- 
proves the pope, 244. 

Grotius, on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 205 — on divine 
right, 205. 

Hall, Bishop, on presbyterian ordi- 
nation and genuine succession, 
condemns this high Church 
scheme, 288. 

Hammond, Dr., gives up direct 
Scripture evidence for episcopa- 
cy, 26 — on Scriptural presbyters 
as governors of the church, 33 
— on the succession of the Jew- 
ish high priests, 272. 

Hands, imposition of, 29, 138, 250. 

Haweis, Dr., Church History of, 
giving an account of the rise of 
Methodism, 278. 

Heber, Bp., remarks of, on Bp. Tay- 
lor's doctrine of confirmation, and 
on his use of authorities, 199. 

Hickes, on the dignity of the epis- 
copal order, 15. 

High Churchism, semi-popery, ex- 
clusiveness and intolerance of, 
passim. 

High priest, Jewish, 50, 51, 68, 80, 
319, 320. 

Hilary, the deacon, quoted, 126. 

Hispala, council of, quoted, 172. 

Historic evidence for high Church 
succession, none, 212, &c., 312. 

Holland, Dr., the king's professor 
of divinity at Oxford, on the 
identity of bishops and presby- 
ters, 168. 

Holmes, Rev. J., of Fulneck, " His- 
tory of the United Brethren," 
quoted, 182, &c. 

Hook, Dr., vicar of Leeds, on high 
Church episcopacy and succes- 
sin, 15— on episcopal ordination 
as essential to salvation, 18 — 
arrogance of, 24 — on bishops 



352 



INDEX. 



being apostles, 31 — his blunder- 
ing and bigoted scorn of the re- 
formed churches, 213 — his " Call 
to Union," 334— On Hear the 
Church, reviewed, 340. 
Hooker, on presbyters, 62, 159, 161 
— on divine right, 64, 160, 161. 

Ignatius's Epistles examined, 100. 

Irenseus, on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 105, &:c. — on 
genuine succession, 282. 

James, St., made bishop over the 
apostles ! ! 65. 

Jerome, on the word apostle, 46 
— on the identity of bishops and 
presbyters, 93-95 — on ordination 
by presbyters, 131, &c. 

Jewel, Bishop, on the word presby- 
ter, 105 — hated by Froude, an 
Oxford Tract-man, 156 — on non- 
preaching prelates, 276 — on gen- 
uine succession, 286. 

Joan, Pope, history of, 229, &c. 

Johnson, Rev. Mr., translator of 
the Code of the Universal 
Church, quoted, 174 — on the 
monk Austin and the British 
bishops, 242 — on the bishop's 
pall, 249. 

Judas, his apostleship treated, 261. 

Jurisdiction of bishops, what 1 166- 
168, 330, 331. 

Justin Martyr's testimony to epis- 
copacy, examined, 104, &c. 

Korah and his company,high Church 
blunders upon, 318. 

Lapsed, the case of, in Cyprian, 
explained, 122. 

Laud, x\bp., the father of semi- 
papist Church of England di- 
vines, and jure divino men, 10. 

Lavington, on moral preaching, 
277. 

Leger, on the Waldenses, 190. 

Leslie, Rev. C, on episcopacy, 177. 

Lloyd, bishop of Worcester, refer- 
red to, 241. 

Luther ordains the first bishop of 
the Lutheran church, 1T6. 



Lutheran episcopacy, 96. 

Martyr, Peter, on Popish vest- 
ments, 270 — on the succession 
of faith, 2S5. 

Mason, Archdeacon, on the power 
of wicked bishops to give true 
orders, 17 — on St Austin's con- 
nection with the slaughter of 
one thousand two hundred pres- 
byters, 242. 

Melancthon, on confirmation, 196 
— on the identity of bishops and 
presbyters, 203 — on genuine 
succession, 285. 

Methodists, Wesley an, rise of, 278, 
&c. — superintendency of, resem- 
bles primitive episcopacy, 62, 
97, 104, 211, 303. 

Ministers, gospel qualifications of, 
71, &c., 252, &c., 296. 

Ministers, wicked, to be forsaken, 
75-79, 107, 121. 

Moral impossibility, 334. 

Moravian episcopacy, 180, &c. 

Mornay, P. Lord du Plessis, 264. 

Mosheim, on Ignatius's Epistles, 
100 — on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 208. 

Names of bishops and presbyters 
so used in common in the New 
Testament as to prove that the 
things were substantially the 
same, 83-86, 319. 

Nice, Council of, its Epistle quoted, 
134-136, 337. 

Order, degree, &c., explained, 91. 
Orders, Book of, for ordaining Bish- 
ops and Priests by the reformers, 

explained, 151, &c. 
Ordination, Popish, examined, 250- 

261. 
Ordination of presbyters, form of, 

in the Church of England, 29, 

151, 152. 
Ordination by presbyters — see 

Presbyter. 
Origen, writings of, on episcopacy, 

examined, 116, &c. 
Overall, Bishop, quoted, 103. 



INDEX. 



353 



Oxford Tracts, quoted, 18 — wri- 
ters of, English Jesuits, 175 — 
their sophistical ambiguity ex- 
posed, 177. 

Pall, bishops', described, 248, &c. 

Parker's, Abp. , ordination, 1 03, 261. 

Pearson, Bp., on the ancient cata- 
logues of bishops, 216. 

Perceval, the Hon. and Rev. A. P., 
on the case of Judas, 262. 

Peter, St.,v^hether ever at Rome? 
216. 

Popes, catalogues of, 217, &c. — 
election of, 220 — schisms among, 
221, &c.— wickedness of, 222, 

228, 236 — encourage rebellion, 

229, 345— heretics, 233— simo- 
niacs, 234 — depose sovereigns, 
309. 

Pope Joan, history of, 229. 

Popery, 11, 66, 69, 79, 174, 216, 
&c., 290, 308, 309, 343, &c. 

Polycarp, Epistle of, quoted, 104. 

Pontifical, a forgery, 218. 

Perrin, on the Waldenses, 189, 
193. 

Presbyter,meaningof the word, 105, 
113. 

Presbyters, commission of the 
apostles, applied to their ordina- 
tion by the English reformers, 
27, 28, 153 — possess the power 
of ordaining, 55-57, 71, 125, 130, 
130-136, 140, 153-155, 166, 
176, 177, 184, 239, &c.— suc- 
cessors of the apostles, 101, 106, 
140, 210, 211— govern the 
church, 33, 43 — preside over 
the church, 101, 105, 106, 112, 
113, 117, 119, 124. 

Presbytery, whati 56, 114-116. 

President in the primitive church, 
whati 190, 194. 

Prideaux, Dr., on the baselessness 
of a personal succession, 219, 
&c. — on the monstrous wicked- 
ness of the popes, 235, &c. 

Priest, high, none but Christ under 
the new covenant, 51, 80 — Jew- 
ish, 50, 51, 68, 69, 80, 319, 320 



— prophets neglect the title, 

ibid. 
Priests, none on earth under the 

gospel, 70. 
Prophets neglect the distinction of 

high priest, 318-320. 
Protean character of the high 

Church succession scheme, 53. 

Ravanel, on confirmation, 196. 

Redmayne, Dr., the reformer, on 
the identity of bishops and pres- 
byters, 150. 

Reeves's translation of Justin Mar- 
tyr, quoted, 104, 113. 

Reformation, hated by Froude, an 
Oxford Tract-man, 144 — scorned 
by Dr. Hook, 213, 214. 

Reformed churches maintain the 
identity of bishops and presby- 
ters, 178. 

Reformers, English, maintaining 
that the commission of the apos- 
tles belongs to presbyters, 27, 
28, 153 — opposed to high Church 
episcopacy, 144, 169, 265-267 
— on ordination, 264. 

Reiner's (the monk) Account of the 
Waldenses, 190. 

Right, divine, nature of, 35, 36, 
136, 137, 275. 

Robertson, Dr., the reformer, on 
the identity of bishops and pres- 
byters, 150. 

Rome, Church of, never maintained 
episcopacy jure divino, or by di- 
vine right, 170, 174— idolatry 
and wickedness of, 224, &c. — 
Bishops of, see Popes. 

Salmasius on Ignatius's Epistles, 
100. 

Sanhedrim, the manner of ordina- 
tion in the Christian church de- 
rived from the, 135. 

Saxon church, 343, &c. — canons 
of, make bishops and presbyters 
one order, 92. 

Schisms, many in the popedom, 
221, &c. 

Schleusner, on the identity of bish- 
ops and presbyters, 209. 



354 



INDEX. 



Scriptural evidence for the high 

Church scheme, none, 26. 
Seifferth, Rev. B., letter from, 

182. 
Semi-papists, high Churchmen 

such, passim. 
Simony, sin of, &c., 235, 244, 250, 

258, 260. 
Sinclair, Rev. J., corrected, in the 

notes at pp. 56, 65, 84, 127, 177, 

and pp. 91, 206. 
Smith, on the Greek church, quo- 
ted, 199. 
Stillingfleet, on the nature of divine 

right, 35, 36 — on Ignatius, 104 

— on apostolical succession, 288. 
Succession, high Church scheme. 

Popery of, passim. 
Succession, genuine apostolical, 

271, 293. 
Succession of Jewish high priests, 

272. 
Suicer, on the identity of bishops 

and presbyters, 208. 
Superintendency of bishops ex- 
plained, 96, &c. 
Superintendency, Wesleyan, 62, 

97, 104, 211, 303. 
Superintendents of the Lutheran 

Church, 62, 96. 
Superintendents of the Scotch kirk, 

54. 
Synagogue, ordination rites of, 

adopted by the Christian church, 

135. 

Taylor, Bishop, extracts from his 
Episcopacy Asserted, 13, 17, 25 
— perverts the meaning of au- 
thors, 38 — on tradition, 89 — on 
Epiphanius, 129 — on confirma- 
tion, 198. 

TertuUian, extracts from, 110 — on 
genuine succession, 282— quoted, 
342, note. 

Theodoret quoted, 30, 44. 

Titus not an apostle, 38. 

Timothy and Titus, case of, argued, 
52-59, 142, 321-323. 

2 Timothy i, 6, explained, 55, 323. 

Tradition, 89, 109. 



Trent, council of, on the identity 
of bishops and presbyters, 174. 

United States, churches of, attack- 
ed by Dr. Hook, 341. 

Usher, Abp., on the spuriousness 
of Ignatius's Epistles, 100 — on 
the identity of bishops and pres- 
byters, 209. 

Valesius's note on the word apostle, 
45 — on the Miletian clergy, 134. 

Vestments, Popish, 270. 

Vitringa, on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 208. 

"Voice of the church," 177, 332. 

Wake, Abp., translation of Clemens 
Romanus corrected, 97 — on the 
Epistles of Ignatius, 100. 

Waldenses, an account of the, 179, 
195 — their opinion of confirma- 
tion, 196 — on the nullity of Po- 
pish ordinations, 262. 

Wells, Dr., corrected, 222. 

Wesley, the Rev. J. & C., 278, 
&c. 

Wesley, the Rev. J., on apostolical 
succession, 289. 

Whitaker, Dr., on the apostolical 
office, 49 — on genuine succes- 
sion, 108, 287 — on the identity 
of bishops and presbyters, 158, 
202 — on the nullity of Popish 
orders, 265. 

Whitby, Dr., 142 — on the simony 
of the Church of Rome, 234, 
&c. 

White, Dr. J., on genuine succes- 
sion, 287. 

White, Francis, bishop of Ely, on 
genuine succession, 288. 

Whitefield, Rev. G., 278, &c. 

Wickliffe, on the identity of bish- 
ops and presbyters, 145^ 201 — 
on confirmation, 196. 

Zanchius, on the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, 206 — on Popish 
vestments, 270 — on genuine 
succession, 285. 



GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 
Christian Biography, vol. 2, containing Lives of the 

Rev. Peard Dickinson and Mr. John Janevvay $0 50 

Do, vol. 3, containing Lives of Sir Matthew Hale, Rev. Joseph 

Alleine, and Mr. Nathaniel Heyvvood 50 

Do, vol. 4, containing Lives of the Rev. Samuel Pearce, Rev. 

John Shower, Rev. S. New^cll, and Mrs. Agnes Beaumont 50 
Do, vol. 5, containing Lives of Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop 

Latimer 50 

Christian's Manuel ; a Treatise on Christian Perfec- 
tion. By the Rev. T. Merritt. 24mo. 25 

Christian's Pattern ; or a Treatise on the Imitation of 

Christ. By Thomas a Kempis. Translated by the Rev. John 
Wesley. 24 mo. * 25 

Christian Perf ^rtion, a Plain Account of, as believed 

and taught by the Rev. John Wesley. A neat pocket edition. 
24mo. 25 

Christian Perfection ; being an Extract from the Rev. 

John Fletcher's Treatise on that subject. 24mo. 25 

Christian Theology. By Adam Clarke, LL. D., 

F. A. S., with a Life of the Author by Samuel Dunn. 12mo. 1 00 

Clarke, Dr. Adam, Life of, 3 vols, in 1. 12mo., plain 

sheep 1 50 

Do, 3d vol., 12mo., in muslin 44 

Do, 3d vol., 8vo., muslin 88 

Do, English edition, 3 vols. 8 vo., extra calf 8 00 

Do, abridged. 18mo. 38 

Class-Book, [Church,] leather cover 20 

Coke, Rev. Dr., Life of, including his Travels and 

Extraordinary Missionary Exertions indifferent Parts of the World. 
By Samuel Drew. 12mo. 75 

Coke, Mrs. Life of. 18mo. 25 

Commandment with Promise. By the author of ''The 
Week." 18mo. 44 

Conversations for the Young, designed to promote the 

profitable Reading of the Scriptures. By the Rev. R. Watson. 
12mo. 75 

Convert's Guide and Preacher's Assistant. By P.ev 

Timothy Merritt. 18mo. " 38 

Cooper, Mrs., of London, Life of. By Dr. A. Clarke. 

18mo. 50 

Cottager, the Young. By Rev. Legh Richmond. 

18mo. 25 

Course of Study of the N. York Annual Conference. 06 

Cowley, Joseph, Life of. By John Holland, author 

of the Life of Summerfield. 18mo. 35 



GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS 

Miscellaneous. 

Abbott, Rev. Benjamin, Experience and Gospel La- 
bours of the ; to which is annexed a Narrative of his Life and 
Death. By John Ffirth* 18mo. $0 50 

Admonitoiy Counsels, addressed to a Methodist on 

Subjects of Christian Experience and Practice. By John Bake- 
well. 18mo. 38 

Advice to the Teens. By the Rev. Isaac Taylor. 

18mo. 31 

Alleine's Alarm, and Baxter's Call. 18mo. 50 

Almanac, Methodist 06 

Apology for the Bible, in a Series of Letters address- 
ed to Thomas Paine, author of the " Age of Reason," <fec. By 
Bp. Watson. 18mo. 38 

Apostles and Evangelists, Lives of the. By Rev. 

George Peck, D. D. 18mo. ' 38 

Baptism, Letters on. By the Rev. T. Merritt. 8vo. 

pamphlet 09 

Baptism, Christian, its Mode, Obhgation, Import, 

and Relative Order. By Rev. F. G. Hibbard. 12mo. 63 

Baptism, Obligation, Mode, and Subjects of. By 

Rev. H. Slicer. 18mo. 50 

Baptism, Serm.on on. By Rev. P. P. Sandford. 8vo 

pamphlet 12 

Bingham, Miss, Life of. ISmo. 38 

Bramwell, William, Memoir of the Life and Ministry 

of. By James Sigston. ISmo. 50 

Bunting, Miss Hannah S., Memoir, Diary and Letters 

of. Compiled by the Rev. T. Merritt. 2 vols. 18mo. 50 

Calvinistic Controversy, embracing a Sermon on Pre- 
destination and Election. By the Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D. D. 
12mo. 75 

Carey, William, Conversations on the Life of. ISmo. 31 
Carvosso, Mr. William, Memoir of ; sixty years a class 

leader. ISmo. 50 

Centenary of Wesleyan Methodism. By Rev. T. 

Jackson. 12mo. 75 

Ceylonese Converts 25 

Choice Pleasures for Youth. ISmo. 31 

Christian Biography, vol. 1, containing Lives of Isaac 

Watts, D. D., and Mr. Thomas Haliburton. 18mo. 50 



GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 
Cox, Melville B., late Missionary to Liberia, Life and 

Remains of. By the Rev. G. F. Cox. 18mo. SO 50 

Daily Monitor. 72mo., muslin 31 

Do, do morocco tucks, gilt edges 38 

Dairyman's Daughter ; a new edition, with several ad- 
ditions. ISmo. 38 

Deaf and Dumb, Recollections of. 18mo. 31 

Defence of our Fathers. By Rev. John Emory. 8vo. 75 

Deists, a Short and Easy Method with. By Charles 

Leslie. 06 

Devout Exercises of the Heart. By Mrs. Rowe. 

24mo. 25 

Dickinson, Rev. Peard, Memoir of. Written by him- 
self. Revised and corrected by Rev. J. Benson. 18mo. 38 

Dick's Christian Philosopher, abridged by H. D. Gos- 
ling. 18mo. 50 

Dick's Improvement of Society, abridged by do. 
18mo. 50 

Dick's Philosophy of Religion, abridged by do. 18mo. 50 

Dictionary, Biblical and Theological, explanatory of 

the History, Manners, and Customs of the Jews and neighbouring 

nations, &c. By Rev. Richard Watson. 1 vol. 8vo., with five 

maps, sheep plain 3 50 

Do, calf plain 4 00 

Do, calf gilt 4 25 

Do, calf extra 4 50 

Do, 2 vols., sheep 3 75 

Do, 2 vols., calf 4 25 

Dictionary of the Bible, for Sunday Schools and Fami- 
lies. By the Rev. J. Covel, jun. ; with maps and fine engravings. 
18mo. 1 00 

Discipline, Methodist. 

12mo., sheep plain 60 

75 

87 

1 00 

1 00 

1 25 

1 50 

25 

38 

50 

75 

75 

75 

1 13 



Do, 


calf plain 


Do, 


calf gilt 


Do, 


calf extra 


Do, 


roan neat 


Do, 


calf do, gilt leaves 


Do, 


morocco, do do 


Do, 


24rao., sheep plain 


Do, 


calf plain 


Do, 


calf gilt 


Do, 


roan neat 


Do, 


calf extra 


Do, 


roan neat, with tucks 


Do, 


morocco, do 



GFNERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOK&. 

Discipline, Administration of By Bishop Hedding. 

24mo. $0 25 

Doctrinal Tracts. 18mo. 50 

Downing, Rev. J. W., A. M., Remains of, with a brief 

Memoir. Edited by Rev. E. H. Downing, A. M. 12mo. 75 

Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, translated from 

the original by Rev. C. F. Cruse. 8vo. sheep 2 50 

Ecclesiastical History. By Martin Ruter, D. D. 1 vol. 

8vo., sheep plain 2 00 

Do, calf plain 2 25 

Do, calf gilt 2 50 

Do, calf extra 2 75 

Eloquence, the Principles of, adapted to the Pulpit and 

the Bar. By the Abbe Maury. Translated from the French, 
vi^ith Additional Notes by John Neale Lake, A. M. ; to which are 
added Mr. Wesley's Directions concerning Pronunciation and Ges- 
ture. 18mo. 50 

Emory, John, D. D., one of the Bishops of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, Life of. By his Eldest Son. 8vo. sheep 1 50 
Do, calf 1 75 

Do, calf gilt 2 00 

Do, calf extra 2 25 

Do, Life and Works of ; comprising his Defence of our Fathers, and 
Episcopal Controversy ; complete in one volume, sheep 2 50 
Do, calf 2 75 

Do, calf gilt 3 00 

Do, calf extra 3 50 

Episcopal Controversy Reviev^ed. By John Emory, 

D. D., with Portrait. 8vo., sheep ■ 1 50 

Episcopius, Simon, D. D», and Professor of Theology 

in the University of Leyden, Memoir of ; with a Brief Account of 
the Synod of Dort, &c., &c. By Frederick Calder. 12mo. 1 00 

Errors of Socinianism. By Rev. Edward Hare. 

12mo. 75 

Evangelical Rambler, in 13 vols., 18mo. 4 06 

Evangelical Spectator, in 4 vols., 18mo. i 25 

Experience of Several Eminent Methodist Preachers, 

with an Account of their Call to, and Success in, the Ministry. 
In a series of Letters, written by themselves, to the Rev. John 
Wesley. 12mo. 75 

^Falkland, Lady, Life of. 18mo. 19 

Farmer Goodall and his Friend. By the author of " The 

Last Day of the Week." 18mo. 37 

Fatal Feud, the. By Rev. G. A. Raybold. 18mo. 31 
Filial Duty Recommended. 18mo. 31 



GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 
Fletcher, Rev. J., Life of. By Rev. Joseph Benson. 

12mo. SO 75 

Fletcher, Works of, in 4 vols., 8vo., plain sheep 7 50 

Do, calf plain 8 50 

Do, calf gilt 9 50 

Do, calf extra 10 50 

Fletcher's Checks, 2 vols. 8vo. 4 00 

Fletcher's Appeal. 18mo. 60 

Fletcher, Mrs., Consort of the Rev. J. Fletcher, Life 

of. By the Rev. H. Moore. 12mo. 75 

Fragments for Young People. 72mo. cambric 25 

Do, morocco tucks, gilt edges 38 

Friendly Hints to the Youth of both Sexes, with An- 
ecdotes. By Rev. J. Doncaster. 24mo. 25 

Gardiner, Colonel, Life of. By Dr, Doddridge. 

18mo. 31 

Garrettson, Rev. Freeborn, Life of. By N. Bangs, 

D. D. 12mo. 75 

Germs of Thought, intended to promote the Mental 

and Religious Improvement of Youth. By Rev. Thomas Wood. 

18mo. 38 

Guilty Tongue, or the Power of Listruction. By the 

author of " The Week." ISmo. 31 

Harmonist ; being a Collection of Tunes and Anthems 

for the various Metres in the Methodist Hymn Book ; half 

bound, 1 00 

Do, full bound, sheep plain 1 38 

Do, calf plain 1 63 

Do, calf extra 2 13 

History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from 

1766 to 1840. By N. Bangs, D. D , 4 vols. 12mo. 4 00 

House of the Thief, or the Eighth Commandment prac- 
tically illustrated. By the author of "The Week." 18mo. 38 
Hyacinth, the Broken. By Mrs. Sherwood. 18mo. 25 

Index and Dictionary of the Holy Bible, designed to 

facilitate the Study of the Sacred Scriptures. By Rev. J. Barr. 
12mo. 50 

Indian Captivity, a Narrative of the Capture of the 

Rev. O. M. Spencer by the Indians. 18mo. 31 

Inquirer after Salvation, the, affectionately addressed ; 

and the New Convert directed and encouraged. By Rev. R. 
Young , 20 

(Separate, in paper covers, each 6 cts.) 



GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. 

Introduction to the Study of the Bible. Bv T H 

Home. 12mo. ^ ^^ ^^ 

Jane and her Teacher. 18mo. 25 

Jerusalem, Destruction of, abridged from Josephus, 

by Rev. D. Smith. 18mo. 38 

Jones, Mrs., Narrative of Wreck of Missionaries. 8vo. 

pamphlet qq 

Josephus' Works, 1 vol. 8vo. sheep 2 00 

Josephus' Works, a new and elegant edition, with 

plates, royal 8vo. 3 qq 

Juhana Oakley. By Mrs. Sherwood. ISmo. 25 

Justification, Scripture Doctrine of. Bv Rev Edward 

Hare. 18mo. ^ 44 

King, Grace, Life of. ISmo." 3g 

Lectures to Children. By Rev. G. Coles. 18mo. 31 
Lectures on Proverbs. By Rev. G. Coles. Vol. L 

18mo. 00 

Letter to a Junior Preacher. By John Hannah, D. D 

24mo. 25 

Longden, Henry, Life of: compiled from his Memoirs, 

Letters, Diary, &c. 18mo. 38 

Love-Feast Tickets, per thousand 75 

Love to the Saviour. By Rev. D. Smith. 18mo. 31 

Magazine, Child's, in 20 vols., 18mo. 6 00 

Magazine, Sunday School, in 13 vols. 4 oe 

M'Allum, Rev. Daniel, M. D., Remains of, with a 

Memoir. 12mo. 7= 

Mammon, or Covetousness, the Sin of the Christian 

Church. By Rev. John Harris. 18mo. 50 

Manners and Customs of the Ancient Israelites. 

Translated from the French of Claude Fleury, by Adam Clarke 
LL. D. 18mo. kq 

Marriage Certificates, with Engravings, per dozen, 

without dis. ^q 

Mary, or the Young Christian, an authentic narrative. 

18mo. ^ 25 

Maxwell, Lady, Life of, compiled from her volum- 

mous Diary and Correspondence, by the Rev. J. Lancaster. 
12mo. J Q(j 

Minutes of Conference, from 1773 to 1839. 2 vols 
8vo. n a ^ «.. ^ ^ 5 00 



'^SJ^ 











1 * o 





-a? ^* 

■^ ^ ^ ^ VV ^ V « • ♦ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, y 

.s^ o^H PreservationTechnologies 

V *^ **♦ ^^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

^ ** o # , "^ "^ ^ Thomson Park Drive 

vj> Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 






Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 



(724)779-2111 



















* V 


















LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 673 546 









